Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

BRITISH MUSEUM.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have been asked by the trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the trustees and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this prayer:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Mr. Kirkwood: Am I in order in asking how much is being asked for by the Government as a contribution towards these funds?

Mr. Speaker: The amount will be in the Estimates.
Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order (Tollesbury and West Mersea) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

FRANCE, GERMANY AND ITALY.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the latest information in his

possession as to what extent unemployment at present obtains among the workers in France, Germany and Italy?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): In France, the number of persons registered at employment exchanges as applicants for work at 18th March, 1939, was 443,061. In Germany, the latest official statistics relate to the end of February, 1939, when the number of persons reported by the employment exchanges as unemployed in Greater Germany (including Austria and the incorporated Sudeten areas) was 455,621. Both as regards France and Germany the figures given are not strictly comparable with those for this country, as they are compiled on a different basis. No statistics are published relating to the numbers unemployed in Italy.

Mr. Day: At what intervals are the figures got out by those countries?

Mr. Brown: I could not give that information without notice.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Are not such figures published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette?

Mr. Brown: We do give figures, but I would not like to say on what basis they have been compiled.

Mr. Lawson: Do the figures include people in concentration camps?

Mr. Brown: They only include persons reported to the employment exchanges.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that Italy is sending a very large number of men into Germany to help carry on agriculture?

Mr. Brown: That is another question, although I have seen reports to that effect.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour what complaints he has received from manufacturers wishing to establish businesses in Special Areas that the terms of assistance under the Special Areas Reconstruction Act are less favourable than those generally obtainable from commercial banks?

Mr. E. Brown: I have received no complaints of this character.

Mr. Edwards: Does the Minister consider that this experiment has been prolific


or barren, and does he claim that these conclusions could not have been obtained through ordinary means?

Mr. Brown: There is no doubt that the experiment has been a great success, so much so that there is not much left in the fund.

Mr. Edwards: Could not the special facilities have been obtained in other ways?

Mr. Brown: I could not give an answer on that subject in reply to a supplementary question.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not a fact that industries in other areas are complaining of the competition from the Special Areas?

Mr. Brown: I could not go as far as that. I have seen complaints from individual industries.

ASSISTANCE BOARD AREA OFFICE, YORK.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that two subordinate officers employed in the area office of the Unemployment Assistance Board at York have been compulsorily transferred as a result of reports rendered by them to their official superiors relating to alleged irregular acts on the part of the officer immediately in charge of the York area; that the staff organisation representing these two men have produced evidence to the headquarters of the board in support of the charges made; and that the officer in charge of the area office has conveyed to members of his staff an expression of his displeasure that they should belong to their recognised staff association; and whether he will consult with the chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board with a view to his reconsidering his refusal to receive a deputation from the recognised staff association in respect of these matters?

Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, the board are satisfied with the manner in which the officer in charge has conducted the York area office and that he has not discouraged members of his staff from exercising their rights as civil servants to belong to a staff association. As regards the second and fourth parts of the question, the whole circumstances of the case were made the

subject of a special inquiry at the headquarters of the board in the course of which the two officers in question, assisted by representatives of their staff association, were given the fullest opportunity of submitting their representations. The chairman of the board, with whom I have been in consultation in the matter, informs me that he sees no grounds for reconsidering his refusal to receive a deputation on a matter which has already been the subject of careful and detailed investigation.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any evidence to show that unemployed persons from other places go to Liverpool for the express purpose of seeking employment in that city; whether such persons have been employed to the disadvantage of Liverpool unemployed persons and ratepayers in general; and whether he will instruct managers of Employment Exchanges in Liverpool, when sending persons to employers of labour to fill vacancies, to send only those unemployed applicants who, other things being equal, have a reasonable period of residence in Liverpool?

Mr. E. Brown: I have no such evidence as that which is referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, the Employment Exchanges give a preference to local unemployed, but it is not the practice to have regard to the period of residence of applicants, except where a stipulation in this respect is made by the employer.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the last part of the question and give an answer; and in regard to the first part of his reply, may I ask if I am to understand by that, that very few of these people are taken on in Liverpool and other Merseyside places?

Mr. Brown: It has always been the practice of the exchanges to place local persons, if they are suitable for the jobs concerned. The last part of my answer referred to the regulations made by the Corporation of Liverpool.

UNREGISTERED PERSONS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an accurate or approximate total figure of the unemployed who are not registered


at the Employment Exchanges, and who have to be added to give the total number of the unemployed?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir; but I have no reason to suppose that the number is at all considerable.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statements alleging that there are hundreds and thousands of such unregistered unemployed men and is he able to supply me with the facts with which to refute such statements?

Mr. Brown: It is the general practice of public assistance authorities to require able-bodied unemployed persons who apply for relief to register at the Employment Exchanges as applicants for work. The suggestion underlying the question of my hon. Friend is that those who apply do not register, but that is not so. In January, 1939, the latest date for which I have figures, the number of persons ordinarily engaged in some industrial occupation, who applied for relief, and who were not registered as unemployed, was under 4,000.

Mr. Adams: In the whole country?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister not aware that a large number of people who are refused benefit under the means test refuse to sign the register at the Employment Exchange?

Mr. Brown: That is another question.

Mr. Lawson: Do not public assistance authorities say that large numbers of people on their funds are without registration?

Mr. Brown: I do not agree that that is so. They may say that there are numbers of people on relief who are not under the Unemployment Assistance Board, but that is an entirely different matter. I am pointing out to the House that it is a complete misapprehension to think that those who get public assistance are not registered at the exchanges; they are almost entirely so, except for 4,000, at the latest date.

Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number are on relief in Glasgow?

TRANSFERENCE (JUVENILES).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of young persons under the age of 16 years who have been transferred from the provinces to the metropolitan districts of London for various kinds of employment during the two years ended the last convenient date under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934; and how many of these persons are in their original employment or have returned to their homes?

Mr. E. Brown: During the two years ended December, 1938, 1,8oo boys and 776 girls, under 16 years of age, were transferred from areas scheduled under the Juvenile Transference Scheme to employment in the Metropolitan area. I regret I cannot say how many of those are in their original employment or have returned home.

Mr. Day: Can we be assured that special care is given to these juveniles when they are sent to London?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir; there is a most elaborate system of after-care, and in some cases hostels have been arranged for in areas where it is not easy to get suitable lodgings.

Mr. Day: Are they given the opportunity of returning home if they become unemployed again?

Mr. Logan: What kind of inspection is provided when these girls are sent to London?

Mr. Brown: That has often been stated. I could not give an answer except by making a speech which would last at least 10 minutes.

Mr. Logan: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise not to make a 10-minute speech?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, out of consideration for you and other Members of the House.

TRADING SITES (UNDERLYING COAL).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the amount of coal that has been purchased by the Sites Company under the Pallions and St. Helens trading sites, respectively, and the price paid per ton; and whether the coal can be worked by the coal owners and the Sites Company left without any right of support?

Mr. E. Brown: The mineral rights under the site at Pallion are reserved to the owners, but the Commissioner for the Special Areas is advised that, even though working the coal should be resumed, it would not involve any serious risk to buildings. The Commissioner owns the coal under the site at St. Helen Auckland, and arrangements have been made with the lessees to secure support for the surface. It would be contrary to general practice to disclose the financial details of such arrangements.

Mr. Stewart: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer may I ask whether he is satisfied that the coal measures in this case are of such a nature that, if they were worked, it would have little or no effect as regards subsidence?

Mr. Brown: I understand that the Commissioner has satisfied himself on that point.

BENEFIT CLAIM, HOLLOWAY.

Mr. Montague: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that when a claimant to benefit, Mr. W. Bailey, of 33, Frederick Street, N.7, appeared before the Court of Referees at Holloway on 21st February, the chairman of the court refused to allow a friend whom he had brought to be present during the proceedings, and later, told the claimant that he should not bring his girl friend next time; and, as it is undesirable for a chairman to advise a claimant as to whom he shall bring with him in the capacity of friend or to use expressions of this character which had nothing to do with the matter in hand, will he have inquiry made into the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiry made into this matter, and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Montague: Is the Minister aware that the person taken was not a personal or intimate friend of the kind implied; that an unemployed man is entitled to have anyone he pleases to assist him at a Court of Referees; and that there is far too much of this sort of impertinence at the expense of unemployed people?

Mr. Brown: With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the answer is "Yes" My preliminary inquiries lead me to believe that the statement complained of was made more as a joke than anything else.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the draft conventions adopted by the 1937 session of the International Labour Conference have been submitted to the Senate of Cuba for approval by a message from the President of the Republic; and whether he will indicate the action taken by the other States members of the International Labour Organisation with regard to these conventions?

Mr. E. Brown: I understand that action has been taken in Cuba on the lines indicated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I received no official intimation of any action short of formal ratification, taken by other States members of the International Labour Organisation with regard to conventions. The International Labour Office publish information on the matter from time to time in "Industrial and Labour Information," which is issued weekly, and copies of which are sent to the Library of the House.

Mr. Hall: What action do the Governmen propose to take in respect of this convention?

Mr. Brown: The answer is contained in White Paper 5924.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE EMPLOYéS (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Guild of Insurance Officials have been trying for some time to get a meeting with the representatives of their employers to bring to their notice several matters which require attention; and whether he will consider trying to get them together to see whether agreement can be reached?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that the Guild of Insurance Officials has made applications for meetings with many insurance companies, but I am afraid that I cannot make any useful statement without an indication of the particular cases which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Tinker: If I let the right hon. Gentleman have information which is in my possession, would he be able to get them together?

Mr. Brown: I would not like to go as far as that. The hon. Member knows that the Ministry of Labour has to judge whether there is a favourable opportunity for the use of their conciliation machinery.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that employers have, in particular cases, special powers which have been given to them by this House?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that the attitude in the case of one large employer, an insurance company, is more like what one would expect in Germany than in England?

Mr. Brown: There have been complaints fairly recently about some companies.

Mr. Lipson: Does the machinery for conciliation exist in this case?

Mr. Brown: It is not so much a question of the machinery for conciliation but whether the conciliation shall be internal to the organisation.

Mr. Lathan: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the difficulties which have arisen between the London and Manchester Insurance Company and its employés, he is aware that membership of the staff association is automatically imposed upon members of the staff and membership of an appropriate trade union is prohibited; and whether, having regard to the recognition by this House of the advantages of trade union organisation, he will take action calculated to terminate this encroachment upon the civil rights of the employés concerned?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware of the position stated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I understand that the question is not one of refusal to recognise trade union organisation, but of a difference between the company and the Guild of Insurance Officials as to the particular organisation which should be recognised as representative of the staff.

Mr. Lathan: If I send the Minister evidence showing, first, that members of the staff are literally compelled to join the so-called staff association; and, secondly, that they are prohibited from joining a bona fide protective organisation, will the right hon. Gentleman intimate to the company that that is out of line with public policy in this country?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me the information.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive a deputation of Members of the House who would put before him certain facts with regard to the unreasonable attitude of this company in prohibiting its employés from belonging to their own organisation?

Mr. Brown: I am always glad to receive a deputation of my fellow Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCK WORKERS.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Labour whether the discussions with the National Council of Port Labour Employers has led to a preliminary agreement as to the registration of dock workers and the decasualisation of labour; and whether such agreement includes the guarantee of a full week's work and holidays with pay?

Mr. E. Brown: The discussion with the representatives of the National Council of Port Labour Employers, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, took place at their suggestion for the purpose of elucidating certain points arising in connection with discussions which they are carrying on with the representatives of the trade unions with a view to making joint proposals for the decasualisation of labour. There was, therefore, no question of formulating any agreement at that meeting.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the negotiation that is going on is satisfactory to all interests concerned?

Mr. Brown: We have been discussing, in the preliminary stage, proposals that were made, but I should prefer to say no more at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAKERY TRADE, SCOTLAND.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that for the purposes of the Bakery Trade Board, Scotland has been divided into five regions fixed upon a county basis, and irrespective of the trade and industrial location of borderline towns and villages; why the village of Lennox town in Stirlingshire has been included in Region III although its business competitors are


in Division V; and whether, in view of the anomalies and difficulties that this grouping will provoke, he will arrange that Lennox town will be included in Region V?

Mr. E. Brown: Under the Trade Boards Acts, the Trade Board has the responsibility of determining the area for which a trade committee shall act, and I have no power to vary areas which have been so determined. If my right hon. Friend would care to be put in touch with the Trade Board, I shall be glad to arrange it.

Mr. Johnston: In view of the facts stated in the question, will the right hon. Gentleman give his attention to this matter, because the whole thing is so ridiculous?

Mr. Brown: I will certainly communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRO-NAZI ORGANISATION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the activities of a pro-Nazi organisation in this country known as the Link; whether his attention has been called to certain methods of propaganda adopted; and whether he will take steps to deport the German subjects concerned?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I understand that the organisers and principal officials of this body are all British subjects. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this organisation does all it can to glorify Hitlerism, and derives support from Nazi sources; and is it not desirable that the British public should realise what its precise but undeclared objects are?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that this organisation is mainly for the purposes of pro-Nazi and anti-Semite propaganda. More than that I do not know.

Mr. McGovern: Will not the Home Secretary see that any person who desires Hitler rule instead of British rule is allowed to go back to Germany?

Sir S. Hoare: These are British subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOGUS CLUBS.

Mr. Touche: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the long delay which has transpired since the Government have expressed their intention of introducing legislation to deal with bogus clubs, he is now in a position to make a further statement on the subject?

Sir S. Hoare: The Government had hoped to introduce a Bill to deal with this subject during the present Session of Parliament, but the claims of foreign policy and National Defence on Parliamentary time has been such that there is now little prospect of finding the necessary time, especially as it seems clear that the difficulties of reaching any measure of agreement on the subject are great. Despite these difficulties, the Government are, however, convinced that some amendment of the law is required which, without prejudicing the interests of reputable clubs, will deal with undesirable resorts which misuse the liberty allowed to genuine clubs, and they intend to introduce a Measure on these lines as soon as it is practicable.

Mr. T. Williams: Will consultations take place with the Club and Institute Union before the Government Measure is introduced?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir; we shall certainly hope to have consultations of this kind and try to obtain a basis of general agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with an accident at Messrs. W. H. Healeys, chair factory at High Wycombe, at which a man was killed on Thursday, 23rd March, and what was the cause of the accident?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that the deceased workman obtained a ladder and, without switching off the power, climbed up to some overhead shafting (for what purpose is not clear), and that his clothing became caught by the shaft. The coroner's jury brought in a verdict of accidental death.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the accident at


Kynochs factory, Aston, Birmingham, where a man was killed; and what was the cause of the accident?

Sir S. Hoare: This accident, which occurred on 22nd March at the Kynochs Works of Messrs. I.C.I. Metals, Limited, Witton, Birmingham, was caused by an explosion in the building in which lead styphnate is dried. Only one person was in the building at the time, and I regret to say that he was killed instantaneously. The building was completely wrecked, but no other damage was done to persons or propery. An inquiry into the accident is in progress, and the precise cause of the accident has not yet been ascertained. From such preliminary investigation as has been made, it does not appear that there was any breach of the conditions of the licence permitting the manufacture of explosives at the factory.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION (EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES).

Mr. Leach: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that some magistrates refuse to sign vaccination exemption certificates on the ground of conscientious objection; and will he circularise magistrates to make it clear that a statutory declaration of belief that vaccination would be injurious to the health of the child is the only requirement to be observed by the applicant?

Sir S. Hoare: My attention has recently been drawn to certain newspaper reports regarding the alleged refusal of a magistrate to attest statutory declarations made under Section 1 of the Vaccination Act, 1907, and I am having inquiry made. I believe it is well understood that the attestation of the statutory declaration by a magistrate is a purely ministerial act, and that, if a declaration is brought to him at a convenient and proper time, he should not refuse to attest it; and on the information before me I do not think there is any need for a general circular to justices on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Lord Privy Seal what type of explosive was used in the recent air-raid precautions test in Northampton when the first attempt to demolish a derelict house failed through

the charge not exploding and in which the second attempt succeeded but shattered the windows in houses and buildings 150 yards away; and whether he will ensure that a better type of detonating explosive is used in future tests?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): Inquiries into this matter are still in progress, and, as soon as they are complete, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that such experiments are not indulged in in places that are so close to other buildings as to be likely to cause damage; and also that they are carried out with a greater degree of efficiency?

Sir J. Anderson: I will consider the whole matter in the light of the results of the inquiries.

Mr. Duncan: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many rescue parties so far have been organised in the county of London?

Sir J. Anderson: Nearly 4,000 men have been enrolled in the County of London as members of rescue parties, but I am not in a position to say how far these recruits have yet been organised in parties. The London County Council have undertaken the responsibility for organising rescue parties in the county, and, in consultation with the metropolitan boroughs, their officers are engaged in working out plans for centralised recruiting, for training as parties in peace-time, and for central control and co-ordination in war-time.

Mr. Duncan: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many first-aid parties have been established and know their posts in the county of London?

Sir J. Anderson: Some 4,500 men have been enrolled as members of first-aid parties in the county of London; but I cannot say how far these recruits have been organised as parties and allocated to particular depots. Arrangements have been completed with the St. John Ambulance Brigade, in conjunction with the Metropolitan boroughs, for the collective training as parties of those enrolled for this service who have received preliminary first-aid training. A special organisation for this purpose is being set up under the control of Colonel Wallace Benson, who is


getting into touch immediately with the medical officers of health of the boroughs in order to work out locally the arrangements for collective training. It will be for borough authorities to allocate the parties trained by the brigade to particular depots in their areas.

Mr. Duncan: Is there not a great shortage of first-aid workers, compared with the need, in London; and will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to increase recruitment, both for first-aid parties and for rescue parties?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, it is perfectly true that there is a marked shortage for those parties. Everything possible is being done to promote increased recruitment.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether officers of the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society receive the same allowances as the voluntary organisers of air-raid precautions services and auxiliary nurses?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend has in mind. If he is referring to the fees paid to instructors, members of the brigade or society who are qualified as instructors should receive the same fee as any other instructor similarly qualified.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the position of the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society in the scheme of civil de fence; and whether, in providing additional services in this direction, it is proposed to proceed by increasing the membership of these organisations, or by setting up new and competitive organisations?

Sir J. Anderson: The St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society are rendering valuable assistance to the local authorities responsible for recruiting, organising, and training the air-raid casualty services, in the training of volunteers for those services, and they also encourage a number of their trained members, whose age and experience makes them suitable, to enrol with the local authorities in those services for duty in first-aid posts or first-aid parties. Both bodies retain their position as voluntary first-aid organisations, and there is no question of setting up competitive associations.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has received recently any reports from Major Broadhurst, regional officer, as to the progress of air-raid precautions in Liverpool, stating whether his Department is satisfied with progress to date?

Sir J. Anderson: From information received from my regional officer, I am satisfied that considerable progress has recently been made, and that the situation is now developing satisfactorily.

Mr. Kirby: Is the relationship between the regional officer and the A.R.P. committee in Liverpool quite satisfactory? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the different reports to the city council as to the progress being made?

Sir J. Anderson: My information is that there has been a marked improvement in the situation in recent weeks, and I have no reason to suppose that personal relations are not satisfactory.

Mr. Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say when this area is to be scheduled as vulnerable?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot without notice.

Mr. Pilkington: When is that list to be published?

Sir J. Anderson: The list has been published for certain purposes, and in connection with the Bill which is shortly to come before the House further lists will have to be issued, and work is proceeding on these lists now.

Mr. Silverman: How long will it be before the improved progress reaches the stage at which the right hon. Gentleman can say that he is satisfied?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot say anything on that without notice.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the situation which has arisen in Warwickshire as a result of the removal by the county council of the air-raid wardens from the control of the chief constable?

Sir J. Anderson: While I understand that there was at first a certain amount of opposition among the wardens in certain parts of the county to the change


control of their organisation which was decided upon by the county council, I have every reason to think that the members of the service generally will co-operate loyally with the authorities in making a success of the new arrangements.

Sir J. Mellor: Does my right hon. Friend mean that he has agreed to the decision of the council, and, if so, is not this a complete reversal of policy, involving the scrapping of police control, which has given every satisfaction in Warwickshire?

Sir J. Anderson: The Department have never made known any rigid conditions in regard to air-raid wardens. They have, it is true, in circulars to local authorities given a general guidance in favour of control by the chief of police where that was suitable, but an element of discretion was left to the local authorities, and in this case the county council, after consideration, decided in favour of alternative arrangements.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that decision if I scan show him that he has been much misguided in regard to conditions in Warwickshire?

Sir J. Anderson: I must make it clear that the decision did not require the approval of the Department, but I would, of course, consider any representations which were made.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether expenditure incurred by the local education authorities in carrying out work imposed upon them by Circular No. 1461 of the Board of Education will rank for grant at the same rate as expenditure incurred by the air-raid precautions committees of the same authorities?

Sir J. Anderson: Measures necessary for the protection of school buildings and their occupants are primarily the responsibility of the appropriate education authorities, and fall outside the scope of the Air-Raid Precautions Act, which governs the financial position of local authorities in relation only to the organisation of general air-raid precaution services.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, upon whom the expenditure will

fall, as between sending and receiving authorities under evacuation schemes of local education authorities; will the grant on such expenditure be the grant available under the ordinary grant formula; and what will be the position with regard to expenditure arising out of the facts of evacuation which falls outside the expenditure of a local education authority as such?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Expenditure on the education of children evacuated from the area of one local education authority to that of another will fall on the sending authority and will be recognised for grant in the education account for that authority. It is proposed that a local education authority should receive in respect of its total net recognisable expenditure for the year a grant bearing the same proportion to that expenditure as held good for the last year for which complete audited accounts are available. Expenditure due solely to evacuation, and falling outside the expenditure of a local education authority as such, will not be a charge upon the local education authority. Provision is made in the Civil Defence Bill for defraying from the Exchequer such non-educational expenditure.

Mr. Tomlinson: Do I understand that the education authority will be allowed to carry out the work under the direction of another authority or another department?

Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir, the education authority, which is the sending authority for children, will send in in the ordinary way and will receive grant in accordance with the provisions.

Mr. Tomlinson: The question I wish to ask with respect to expenditure which is due to the evacuation rather than to educational expenditure, which the education authority is called upon to bear is, What grant will be available for the expenditure which will fall upon the local education authorities?

Mr. Lindsay: I do not think that it will fall on the local education authorities, but I cannot give the exact figure at the present moment.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Health whether he has had time to collate the accommodation


returns from reception areas; and when he will be able to decide on the exact boundaries of those areas?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The survey of accommodation is now practically complete and my right hon. Friend hopes very shortly, in the light of the information available, to be in a position to consider the representations which have been made to him regarding the use of certain districts for reception. As regards the second part of the question I am not in a position to give a date at present

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Health exactly what household equipment it is expected that householders in the reception areas are expected to provide for the accommodation of their allotment of evacuated children and adults?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend intends to deal with this question in the circular which he is about to issue to local authorities and of which I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Sir A. Knox: When will that be issued?

Mr. Bernays: Very shortly, Sir.

Mr. Duncan: asked the Minister of Health how many emergency ambulance stations have been set up in Kensington and the addresses thereof?

Mr. Bernays: I understand that the London County Council has provisionally earmarked premises at 10 points in the Royal Borough as emergency ambulance stations, but the addresses cannot properly be published until the London County Council have completed the necessary arrangements with the owners.

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with his plans for evacuation, it is proposed to take an emergency census of the whole of the country or part of the country, and, if so, of what nature?

Mr. Bernays: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind. A survey of accommodation in the areas provisionally classified as suitable for the reception of persons evacuated has been carried out by the local authorities and is now substantially complete. The local authorities in the towns to be evacuated will

shortly be taking steps to ascertain the number of children whose parents would wish them to be evacuated in case of emergency. Neither of these operations is, however, quite in the nature of a. census.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are not the Government planning to find out how many aged and infirm will have to be evacuated in each area?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that one of the difficulties in the matter of taking a census is the impossibility of local authorities knowing how many people are going to evacuate themselves? Unless that information is known, it is impossible for any census figures to be reliable.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Health whether, before the sites of evacuation camps are settled, he proposes to institute any sort of public inquiry as to the most suitable places; and whether in each county all the chief local authorities will be consulted?

Mr. Bernays: I would refer my hon. Friend to yesterday's Debate on the Second Reading of the Camps Bill, when my right hon. Friend explained the arrangements for the selection of sites for the proposed camps.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health what payment is to be made to-male and to female helpers, other than teachers, who volunteer to accompany those who are to be evacuated in the first and second priority groups, and who are accepted for full-time employment in this capacity?

Mr. Bernays: The matter to which the hon. Member's question refers is at present under consideration.

Mr. McEntee: May we hope to have early information in regard to this matter, since practically nobody is volunteering, because people know nothing about the conditions under which they would be expected to go away with children or adults in the first and second priority groups?

Mr. Bernays: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is being borne in mind by my right hon. Friend who is anxious to do all he can in the matter.

Mr. McEntee: If I put down a question in a week's time, will the hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer?

Mr. Bernays: I am afraid I cannot say.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that local authorities are charging rates on houses which remain unfurnished and unoccupied if it is disclosed that they have been purchased for the evacuation of people in time of war; and whether he will take steps to remedy this in the interests of air-raid precautions?

Mr. Bernays: I am not aware that local authorities have acted as stated in the first part of the question. My right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction to determine liability for rates, but if my hon. Friend would care to bring any particular case to my notice I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MILK AND MEALS, SCHOOL CHILDREN.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of school children in the county of Durham who receive milk at school, also what percentage of these are in receipt of free milk upon grounds of penury or malnutrition, with the total weekly charge to the authorities concerned?

Mr. Lindsay: On 1st October, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available, 63,724 children in the administrative county of Durham for purposes of elementary education were receiving milk at public elementary schools. During the month of February, 1939, 37,746 children, or 59 per cent. of the total number, received a pint of free milk a day, at a cost to the local education authority of about £900 a week. Grant is payable by the Board of Education at the rate of 50 per cent. on this expenditure.

Mr. Adams: Are the Government not shocked at the state of gross penury prevailing in County Durham under this head?

Mr. Lindsay: It is a source of satisfaction that the milk is being provided.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what action he proposes to take

following upon the representations made to the Board by the Children's Minimum Council for the extension of the provision of free meals to children attending school?

Mr. Lindsay: At an interview with a deputation from the Children's Minimum Council on Monday last my noble Friend explained the action which is already being taken by the Board of Education to secure a fuller exercise by local education authorities of their powers to provide free meals and milk for school children. This action includes a survey of the conditions in all areas, and, where necessary, representations to the local education authorities, urging them to extend or improve their arrangements.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the answer an indication that the Board agree with the representations, and that they will do everything, including the provision of the necessary classrooms, to enable the committee's representations to. be adopted by the authorities?

Mr. Lindsay: If the hon. Member will wait, there is a question distinctly relating to that.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of local education authorities that have been urged by his Department to improve their provisions for the feeding of schoolchildren, giving separate figures for Lancashire; and in how many cases has the response been satisfactory?

Mr. Lindsay: Local education authorities have for many years past been urged by the Board to improve their provision for the feeding of school children. Since the more intensive survey of the position in each area was begun in July last, representations on the subject have been made to 89 authorities, including 10 in Lancashire. In many cases replies from the authorities have not yet been received, but in 31 cases improvements have been effected or promised as a result of the Board's representations.

Mr. MacDonald: Failing a satisfactory response, what action do the Ministry intend to take?

Mr. Lindsay: We will press on.

Mr. Tomlinson: Could we have the names of the authorities in Lancashire?

Mr. Lindsay: I announced some of them in the Debate last week, but I will certainly let the hon. Member have a list.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the estimated cost of the suggestions made by the deputation organised by the Children's Minimum Council and received by the President of the Board on the 27th instant; and whether he is aware that these suggestions are strongly supported in the country?

Mr. Lindsay: The cost of the suggestions made by the Children's Minimum Council depends on a number of uncertain factors, and it is impossible to give more than an approximate estimate; but on the assumption that the allowance of free milk would be two-thirds of a pint per day, that the provision of milk and meals would be continued during school holidays, and that the charge to children paying for meals at school canteens would cover only the cost of the food, it is calculated that the additional cost to public funds would be about £34,000,000 a year. While it is very desirable that the existing powers for the provision of free meals and milk for school-children should be more fully exercised, and that additional provision for the supply of meals on payment should be made in rural areas, I am not aware that there is strong support for expenditure on the scale proposed by the Children's Minimum Council.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman estimates the cost of the recommendations of the council at £34,000,000 per annum, can he give any estimate of the failure to provide such free meals?

Mr. Lindsay: All that I can say is that there is no reason why there should be any under-nourished child in this country if the local education authorities will use their existing powers.

Mr. McEntee: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in some destricts they are feeding the children, and that in other cases they are not; and is it not wrong that children should be subjected to injustice in the areas in which they live?

Mr. Lindsay: As long as you have local government with optional powers, that is inevitable, but, as I pointed out last week, we are bringing pressure to bear upon local authorities which do not do so.

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether in the light of the recommendations contained in the Consultative Committee (Spens) Report on Secondary Education and the suggestion that all post-primary schools should enjoy parity of conditions, the Board is prepared to revise those sections of the new grant regulations which would prevent the payment of maintenance grants to pupils in schools where they have hitherto been paid?

Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir. As the hon. Member will recall, the question of the payment of maintenance allowances to children while still under the obligation to attend school was decided by this House in the negative after a full Debate on 12th February, 1936, and I have already stated in replies to questions the reasons why my Noble Friend is not at present in a position to accept the administrative recommendations of the Spens Report.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister aware that this right of the education authorities has been admitted by this House and administered out of existence by the Board of Education? Will he see that it is restored, so that the authorities who have been paying maintenance allowances with the approval of his Department may continue to do so?

Mr. Lindsay: It will continue as long as the children are not under the obligation to attend school. There is no change of policy whatsoever.

REORGANISATION (SCHOOL PREMISES).

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the necessity of the development or reorganisation of many schools on account of the paramount importance of the welfare of school children to which the Board called attention in Circular No. 1444, a general survey has now been made of all school premises, especially in country areas?

Mr. Lindsay: The schemes of reorganisation upon which local education authorities, including those for country areas, are actively engaged involve a survey of all school premises. Only in this way can the authorities determine what part each school shall take in the schemes of reorganisation.

Mr. Day: May we be informed how many schools are without water for drinking and other purposes?

Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Member might be if he put a question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEASLES (SERUM INOCULATION).

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health where the 37 cases, with seven deaths, after inoculation with convalescent measles serum, referred to on page 39 of the last Annual Report of his chief medical officer, occurred; whether any inquests were held on the fatal cases; whether his medical officers held an inquiry into the circumstances and, if so, will he consider the desirability of publishing their report with a view to such steps being taken as may, if possible, prevent a recurrence of similar disasters?

Mr. Bernays: Eighteen of these cases occurred in Oxfordshire, eleven in Essex, six in Berkshire and one each in Surrey and Sussex. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that an inquest was not held on any of the fatal cases. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the question, investigations into this group of cases, which I am advised are of a highly exceptional character, are still being carried out by the medical staff of my Department, with the assistance of representatives of the Medical Research Council and other medical authorities, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement about the publication of a report.

Mr. Leach: Can the Minister inform me why no post mortem inquests were held in respect of these deaths, and does not he think it also advisable now further to investigate the merits or demerits of this dangerous serum?

Mr. Bernays: The question of inquests, is, of course, a matter for the coroner over which my right hon. Friend has no control. With regard to the second part of his question, of course the most careful investigations are being made.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increased number of unemployed men in the building industry and of the continued shortage of houses and overcrowding in

certain areas, he will bring pressure to bear on local authorities to speed up house-building where such shortage and overcrowding exists?

Mr. Bernays: Local authorities are for the most part making good progress with house-building. As the hon. Member was informed in answer to his question on 15th December last, my right hon. Friend thinks that the local authorities are, generally speaking, fulfilling their duties under the Housing Acts with energy and efficiency, and I would again express willingness to make inquiries into any particular case which the hon. Member may have in mind.

Mr. McEntee: Is not the answer which the hon. Member has just given to me an admission that certain authorities are not doing their duty; and is it not common sense that where there is overcrowding and houses are needed, and they are not doing their duty, the right hon. Gentleman should make some representations to them, and will he put that point to his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir, and if any case of that kind is brought to our notice, my right hon. Friend immediately makes representations.

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many local authorities are being compelled to raise the rents of their municipal houses owing to the inadequate subsidy provided by the Government for the abatement of overcrowding and the rehousing of persons from unfit dwellings; and will he introduce early legislation to increase the subsidy and obviate hardship to working-class tenants?

Mr. Bernays: With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend is not aware of any general increase in the rents of municipal houses. With regard to the second part, my right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that the rates of Exchequer subsidy for slum clearance and overcrowding which were fixed by Parliament only a year ago are inadequate for their purpose.

Mr. Poole: Can the Minister inform the House from what source he anticipates that the reduced subsidy, which will amount approximately to £5 per house, is going to be met? Is it not clear that it will have to be met from the general


rate of the local authority or by increasing rents to the tenants? Will he, therefore, give further consideration to the matter, because he result will be a slowing down of the building of houses which are to deal with the evil of overcrowding?

Mr. Bernays: We have no evidence of that?

Mr. Poole: If I can produce evidence in respect of the Birmingham City Council and other local authorities in the Midlands, will consideration be given to it?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any representations which the hon. Member makes.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health the number of old age pensioners within the area of the Leyton and Walthamstow Employment Exchange; and what number received Poor Law relief during the 12 months to the latest available date?

Mr. Bernays: I regret that the information desired is not available. The records of old age pensioners are not kept on a territorial basis, and the returns made to my Department by public assistance authorities of the number of persons in receipt of poor relief do not contain separate particulars for parts of an administrative county.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Health the number of people in the country, at the latest available date, who are in receipt of old age pension and who are also recipients of assistance from public assistance committees?

Mr. Bernays: On 1st January, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 250,291 old age pensioners in England and Wales in receipt of poor relief.

Mr. Tinker: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this appalling figure and ask him to do something for these poor people?

Mr. Holdsworth: Is it possible to state what will be the cost for one year of raising these pensions to £1?

Mr. Bernays: Certainly, Sir, if the hon. Gentleman will put down the question.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement to the House showing the amount each local authority is paying annually to old age pensioners; and what this represents in rates to each authority?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend is still awaiting returns from a few public assistance authorities giving the particulars for which he has asked. He hopes to be in a position to circulate a statement in the course of next week.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Minister gets sufficient information will he present it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a recommendation that these pensions should be increased?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Minister of Health the number of old age pensioners residing in the Kingswinford Division who are in receipt of public assistance?

Mr. Bernays: I regret that the information desired is not available. The returns made to my Department by public assistance authorities of the number of persons in receipt of poor relief do not contain separate particulars for parts of an administrative county.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYéS (EMERGENCY SERVICE).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to Circular 1,466 of 21st February, 1939, issued by the Board of Education as an inducement to teachers to join His Majesty's Forces by the promise of safeguarding salary and pension if called up for service in war; and whether he will now issue to local government authorities a similar inducement concerning their employés?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already issued a circular to local government authorities and I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy. As regards the pensionable position of the employés in question, I would refer to the reply given to him on 9th February last.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the need for an international exhibition and fair to be held during the year 1940 at Trentham, Blackpool, Manchester, or some other suitable centre; that all forms of trade, sport and other human activities should be represented; that an international conference be held at the same time at which representatives of all nations shall be invited to consider what steps can be taken to develop economic co-operation; that at the same time a conference shall be held to deal with a limited number of political questions after the terms of reference for the conference have been agreed upon by the Governments that will be represented; and will he make a statement as to the Government's policy on this matter?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government are precluded by the terms of the International Convention of 1928, relating to International Exhibitions, from organising in 1940 any exhibition of the kind contemplated by the hon. Member. As regards the second part of this question I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on this subject in reply to questions in the House on 27th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNION ACT. 1927.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the case presented to him by the deputation representing the Trades Union Congress that the time has arrived for the restoration of the pre-1926 trade union rights, the repeal of the Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act, 1927, and the restoration to the Union of Post Office Workers of their pre-1926 rights, and the restoration of all rights taken from the organised people by the Act of 1927; and is he now in a position to make a statement on this matter, and indicate what action it is pro posed to take?

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member in reply to a question which he addressed to me on 16th March last.

Mr. Batey: Was not the previous answer that the Prime Minister could do nothing?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTROL OF FLYING (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the report of the Committee on Control of Flying?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air hopes to make a full statement shortly, and to indicate the steps that will be taken to give effect to the approved recommendations of the committee. I think that the question of discussion must await that statement.

Mr. Montague: Does that mean that the Government are going to adopt all the recommendations?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, it does not mean that necessarily.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (INCREASE).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has now been reached by the Government as to the further measures to be taken for the recruitment of the armed forces of the Crown; and whether any pledge has been given to France to introduce compulsory national service?

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state the result of the review of our defensive position in the light of the changed conditions in Europe, and, in particular, what is the Government's policy with regard to in creasing the land forces available to re pulse attack upon British possessions and to defend our allies against aggression?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a private notice question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. Adams: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not correct to say that even with the welcome increase announced yesterday we are still relatively less well prepared on land than we were in the summer of 1914?

The Prime Minister: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. Adams: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend has finally ruled out the possibility of universal service?

The Prime Minister: Nothing is final in this world.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether the Government have any steps in contemplation for stimulating recruiting for the Regular Army in order to overcome the shortage which exists at the present moment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is under consideration.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Prime Minister aware that during my life I have been in favour of a compulsory citizen army, but that I have changed my views now?

Oral Answers to Questions — PACIFIC CONFERENCE, NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Prime Minister whether a proposal to set up a permanent Pacific Defence Board will be included in the agenda of the forth coming Defence Conference in New Zealand?

The Prime Minister: The object of the Conference, as already announced, is to consider matters of common concern in the Pacific with particular reference to Defence questions. I am not in a position to give details of any particular matters which may be discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make an up-to-date statement of the progress of negotiations with other Governments with respect to the position in international affairs before the House rises for the Easter Recess; and whether he will give an opportunity for the House to debate the position before any decision is come to, undertaking, if necessary, to interrupt the Easter Recess for this purpose?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to await the statement which I propose to make on Business.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether, as part of the review of the whole position which is being undertaken, the Committee of Imperial Defence is making a special and ad hoc review of the Defence arrangements put forward by the Government in the recent Defence Service Estimates in order to decide if these arrangements are commensurate with commitments now contemplated and with the changes in the military strengths of other European Powers which have occurred since the Estimates were framed?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Member can rest assured that every aspect of the present situation has been, and is being, kept under review by the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether the review of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks is the day-to-day review which it is the duty of the Defence Departments and the Committee of Imperial Defence to make, or whether it is a special review which has been instituted since the Prime Minister's statement on 17th March?

The Prime Minister: It is a special review.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will similar announcements be made in respect of the Navy and the Air Force to that which the right hon. Gentleman was able to announce yesterday in regard to the Territorial Force?

The Prime Minister: I anticipate that statements will be made in the House from time to time as conclusions are reached.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of taking immediate action in conjunction with the Dominions and friendly States, to withhold from Germany the materials possessed by them, essential to German rearmament and to introduce the necessary legislation here?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Could not tremendous pressure be brought to bear on Germany by purely economic action on these lines; and will the Prime Minister consider whether the matter ought not to be discussed with these other countries?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not the case that action on these lines would involve war at once, without any doubt at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNITY CENTRE, WALSALL.

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the application from the Walsall Borough Council for loan sanction for the erection of a community centre in the Harden Ward of the council's area; on what date was the application made; what reply has been given; and what is the cause of the delay in giving sanction?

Mr. Bernays: Application for a loan sanction in this matter was made to my right hon. Friend by the Walsall Borough Council on 26th February, 1938. He was subsequently invited by the council to defer issuing the sanction pending their decision on the question whether to apply for a grant under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937. I am informed that the council have now applied for a grant under this Act and that the application is at present being considered by my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education who hopes shortly to be in a position to give his decision.

Mr. Poole: Can the hon. Member say the date when the application was made?

Mr. Bernays: It was made on 14th January, 1939.

Oral Answers to Questions — DERATING.

Mr. Banfield: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Exchequer grants to boroughs and urban districts to cover the loss of rates due to the derating of industrial hereditaments do not meet the loss sustained, and that it is necessary in some areas to increase rates by sums varying up to 1s. in the £ thus imposing an unreasonable burden on the other ratepayers; and whether he will undertake to review the working of the Derating Act so that the gap between the loss sustained by local authorities and the amount received from the Exchequer may be considerably lessened?

Mr. Bernays: Although in grand total the Exchequer grants to local authorities under the Local Government Acts, 1929 and 1937, take account of the loss of

rates due to derating in 1929, their distribution is mainly in accordance with needs for local government services in any area in relation to the ability of the area to meet the cost. A statutory investigation into the working of the rules for distribution was completed two years ago and certain modifications were proposed with the general concurrence of the Associations of Local Authorities. These were embodied in the Act of 1937 in which also provision is made for a further statutory investigation in due course.

Mr. Banfield: May I ask the hon. Member to look into this matter a little further? Does he not realise the injustice which is done to poor people who have to pay an additional rate of 1s. 4d. in the £ more than they would otherwise pay while industrial establishments and business undertakings are making large profits? Is it not time that the Derating Act was repealed?

Oral Answers to Questions — BURNING PIT-HEAPS, NORTHUMBERLAND.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Health the number of active burning pit-heaps in Northumberland; the number which have been extinguished; and the location of the extinguished heaps?

Mr. Bernays: There are 20 burning pit-heaps in the county. Two have been extinguished, at West Sleekburn and Bomarsund.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister give an assurance that steps will be taken in the near future to deal with this menace?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend is anxious to do all he can in this matter. These burning pit-heaps have been visited by inspectors who have made suggestions for remedial measures, and so far two burning pit-heaps have been dealt with.

Mr. Taylor: Is not provision made in the Civil Defence Bill for dealing with this menace, and, if so, can we have an assurance that the necessary steps will be taken immediately?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend is giving the matter continuous consideration and doing all that he can.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not this a matter of the utmost importance from the defence point of view, and ought it not to be done by compulsory measures?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD TRANSFERENCE.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that our reserve of gold is liable to be dissipated in operations offsetting the transference of money by individuals and companies from British to foreign securities, and that this transference serves no useful purpose from the national point of view; will he take immediate steps to use the major part of this gold to purchase stores of commodities of vital need in time of war?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is it not a fact that the proposal contained in the question is a policy which is being carried out at present, and is not the credit of this country too good for such a brake on progress to be adopted?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not a fact that the gold reserve and the Equalisation Account are standing in a grave position, having regard to the international situation, and would it not be better to have a big supply of commodities and foodstuffs in this country rather than gold?

Sir J. Simon: Those are very difficult and technical questions. I have considered the hon. Gentleman's suggestion with my advisers very carefully, and I think my answer is right.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider passing some of the gold reserve to the old-age pensioners?

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to the amount of gold recently shipped by States neighbours of Germany to the United States of America; and to what extent Great Britain has adopted similar steps?

Sir J. Simon: I have no information regarding gold shipments to the United States from continental countries, other than what has been reported in the Press. Shipments from this country appear in

the regular Customs returns but, of course, include shipments in respect of gold held in this country on foreign account.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that the flight of gold from Europe was greater last week than during the crisis week in September? Can the Chancellor give any information?

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY BILLS.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the fact that the supply of Treasury bills normally depends on the balance between Government income and expenditure and on the balance between the new issues and maturities of other Government obligations, and that a proportion of these Treasury bills are held by the Issue Department of the Bank of England and by Government Departments, will he arrange for a certain quantity of these to be released in exchange for longer-dated securities in order to satisfy the needs of the market, and thereby, of British industry;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the January returns of the London clearing banks show a reduction of £105,000,000 in liquid assets, that is cash, money at call, and bills discounted, as compared with the same month of 1937, and that these banks cannot extend credit without a proportionate increase in their liquid assets which depend largely on the supply of Treasury bills in the money market, and of the recent shrinkage in the volume of these and the prospect of a further shrinkage, he will take steps to increase the supply of Treasury bills available to the market?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot undertake to deal with all the points raised by my hon. Friend in these questions within the limits of a Parliamentary answer. The amount of Treasury bills in circulation is of course very great. Any comparative shortness of supply in recent months is due partly to seasonal causes and partly to the substantial reduction in our gold holding last year. In view of the large borrowing programme ahead of us in the next 12 months, I see no immediate prospect of further shrinkage, but on the contrary should expect the total to be increased.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION.

Mr. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, after having given assurances to Income Tax payers that there will be no increase in direct taxation of income, he will now give an assurance to working people that indirect taxes, which fall more heavily upon them than other sections of the community, will not be increased in the forthcoming Budget?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member is wholly mistaken if he imagines that I have given any assurances to anybody about taxation in the forthcoming Budget. I cannot anticipate the Budget statement as regards either direct or indirect taxation.

Mr. Edwards: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice the shock and surprise on the faces of his followers when he made that statement, and is it not a fact that it has been generally accepted in the country that there will be no increase in taxation?

Sir J. Simon: Certainly, I did not give that impression. I made it entirely clear to everybody in the House, and I thought to the country generally, that I was not anticipating the contents of the Budget, and would not dream of doing so.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why one of his ex-Private Secretaries made a statement that the right hon. Gentleman was not going to increase taxation?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (INCOME TAX).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts paid in Income Tax by local authorities in Great Britain during the financial years 1930–31, and the latest year for which figures are available; and the amounts paid by trading and non-trading departments, separately, for the same two years?

Sir J. Simon: This information is not available, as the statistics collected do not distinguish the amount of tax paid by any particular group of taxpayers.

Mr. Williams: Could not more adequate information be secured?

Sir J. Simon: I will make inquiries, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTATO MARKETING.

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to recommend that the growing of potatoes be de-restricted for the ensuing season on the basis of reasonable indemnity to growers, through the Potato Board, in regard to any possible over- supply of market requirements, should emergency conditions not arise mean while?

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the international situation, he will consider recommending the suspension of the restrictions now enforced by the Potato Marketing Board regarding the growing of potatoes?

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): The home potato crop is normally sufficient to meet almost the whole of the country's requirements and, having regard to the arrangements already made for food storage, I do not consider it is necessary to adopt such a proposal.

Mr. Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that potatoes are a complete food both for human and animal consumption, and that if a declaration is not made on this matter within a month, a whole year is missed for this purpose?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I fully appreciate the difficulties.

Sir Thomas Rosbotham: Is it not a fact that the present regulations of the Potato Marketing Board provide for a sufficient quantity of potatoes to be grown in this country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (RELAY SERVICES).

Mr. Viant: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether a decision has yet been reached on the policy to be adopted in regard to the wireless relay services?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The Ullswater Committee on Broadcasting recommended, with one dissentient—the


late Lord Selsdon—that the ownership and operation of the Relay Companies' services should be taken over by the Post Office. The Government decided, however, that the companies' licences should be extended for three years—that is, to 31st December, 1939—and that during that period the Post Office should undertake technical research and practical experimental work in the distribution of broadcast programmes by wire. As a result of these investigations the conclusion has been reached that there is scope for the provision of services by two systems—firstly, a service by the Relay Companies, and secondly, a Post Office service by "carrier" frequency over telephone lines for use in connection with a wireless receiving set. After full consideration, the Government have decided that the public interest will be best served by the development of both these systems. The Relay Companies' licences will be extended for a further period of 10 years to 31st December, 1949, subject to certain modifications regarding the programmes supplied to subscribers and the control of the exchanges in time of emergency. Licences granted to new companies will be terminable on the same date and will be subject to similar conditions.
In addition, the Post Office will introduce a service for the distribution of broadcast programmes over telephone lines. It will be possible to give a choice of three or four programmes, including the National and the Regional; and a subscriber will be able to use his telephone simultaneously with the reception of a broadcast programme. The service will, I hope, be started this year in a few districts and will be extended later. The charges and other details will be announced in due course. The service will at the outset be restricted to telephone subscribers; and although it is contemplated that it may eventually be extended to non-telephone subscribers, this question will be left over for decision at a later stage after sufficient experience has been obtained of the new service.
The new licences issued to the Relay Companies will provide that in time of emergency the companies should transmit any special announcements ordered by the local A.R.P. or police authorities. Power will also be taken in the licences to require the Relay Exchanges to be con-

nected by wire with a B.B.C. station, thus enabling programmes to be transmitted, if so desired, entirely by wire. These arrangements, which will be adopted also in the new service by telephone, will be of advantage from the point of view of National Defence, as although it is the intention that wireless broadcasting should be continued in the event of war, the service will be liable to deterioration or occasional interruption as a result of interference from which a wire service would be immune.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the areas in which the Government contemplate putting the new service exclude the areas where at present the Relay Companies are operating?

Major Tryon: No, Sir, it will not exclude those areas.

Mr. McEntee: Will any special licences be issued, or will the telephone subscribers have to pay 10s. for a wireless licence in addition to their telephone bill?

Major Tryon: We have not yet fixed the scale of charges for the telephone service, for a variety of reasons. One reason, of course, is that we have not yet been able to ascertain the cost of the equipment which would have to be added. This would, obviously, be included in the cost.

Mr. Montague: Will the individual users be able to choose their programme?

Major Tyron: There will be three or four alternative programmes available, and the individual will himself be able to choose which of those programmes he likes by pressing a button

Mr. Logan: Will a party be able to go into a kiosk while this is going on?

Captain Plugge: Can my right hon. Friend give the House some details as to the restrictions on choice of programmes on the existing relay system for the new licences to which he refers? May I also ask him whether the Ullswater Committee did not recommend that there should be a Minister for Broadcasting in this House, and does he not agree that if we had had a Minister for Broadcasting in this House there never would have been an Abyssinian war, or any of the trouble we now witness in Central Europe?

Major Tryon: In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, I would say that the requirement that people in this country should have the opportunity of listening to their own broadcasting services during a large: proportion of the time, does not mean that other broadcasts will be excluded. With reference to a Minister for Broadcasting, I do not think that is a question for me.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the choice of programmes be confined to British programmes only, or will it include an opportunity of listening in to Continental advertising programmes?

Major Tryon: I do not think that foreign advertising programmes are the only programmes to which I would care to listen.

Mr. Viant: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this new service will be instituted or will be available?

Major Tryon: We are anxious to get on with it as soon as we possibly can. As I made clear in my original reply, the main consideration governing the decision is the importance of this from the point of view of national defence and national safety.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: The business will be:

Monday. —Debate on Foreign Affairs on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Tuesday and Wednesday, until 7.30 p.m—Second Reading of the Civil Defence Bill. After 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday, Committee stage of the Civil Defence Money Resolution.

On Thursday the House will meet at 11 a.m. and we shall take the Motion for the Easter Adjournment. I will make a statement early next week as to the date of re-assembly and the business to be considered.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1."That, in the case of the Croydon Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
"That, in the case of the Southampton Harbour [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Corporations of Smethwick Oldbury Rowley Regis and Tipton in regard to certain tramways in their respective boroughs and to empower the said Corporations to provide and work public service vehicles; to confirm an agreement between the said Corporations and the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Smethwick Oldbury Rowley Regis and Tipton Transport Bill [Lords.]

SMETHWICK OLDBURY ROWLEY REGIS AND TIPTON TRANSPORT BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (PUBLIC TRUSTEE (GENERAL DEPOSIT FUND ) BILL SELECT COMMITTEE).

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Three Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Public Trustee (General Deposit Fund) Bill: Mr. Ammon, Sir Alan Anderson, and Sir John Wardlaw-Milne.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Wheat (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Acland, Mr. Alexander, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, Mr. Drewe, Mr. Haslam, Captain Heilgers, Mr. John, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Maclay, Mr. John Morgan, Mr. Quibell, Mr. Ramsbotham, Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise, Captain, Shaw, Sir Ernest Shepperson, Mr. Snadden, Sir John Train, Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Thomas Williams, and Mr. Young.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Batey, Mr. Collindridge, Mr. Stephen Davies, Mr. Hunloke, and Mr. Mander; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Barnes, Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Burke, Mr. Graham White, and Mr. York.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Bill): The Attorney General, Mr. Buchan-Hepburn, Colonel Clarke, Mr. Trevor Cox, Mr. Cross, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir Henry Fildes, Mr. Fleming, Mr. James Hall, Sir Percy Harris, Major Procter, Mr. Stuart Russell, Mr. Silverman, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Henry Strauss, Captain Strickland, Mr. Tomlin-son, Mr. Watson, Mr. Wedderburn, and Mr. Young.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had appointed the following Members to serve on Standing Committee D: Mr. Beaumont, Mr. Beechman, Commander Bower, Mr. Braithwaite, Colonel Burton, Mr. Cluse, Mr. Cooke, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Rostron Duckworth, Captain Elliston, Captain Arthur Evans, Sir Lindsay Everard, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Grenfell, Major Oscar Guest, Captain Hambro, Mr. Hannah, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Mr. Higgs, Mr. Hulbert, Mr. Law, Mr. Liddall, Mr. Lipson, Mr.

Mander, Mr. Markham, Colonel Mayhew, Mr. Robert Morgan, Mr. Poole, Major Rayner, Mr. Ridley, Mr. Salt, Mr. Storey, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, Mr. Tinker, Mr. Touche, Sir Richard Wells and Mr. Windsor.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — REORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of Scottish Departments' functions to Secretary of State.)

3.53 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out from the beginning, to "shall," in line 42, and to insert:
In any instrument in connection with the acquisition, management, or disposal of any property, heritable or moveable, and in any legal proceedings to which the Secretary of State for Scotland is a party, it shall be sufficient to describe him by the title 'the Secretary of State for Scotland' without naming him and any such instrument.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that property can be held and legal proceedings taken in the official name of "the Secretary of State for Scotland, "without the addition of the name of the individual for the time being holding the office. A similar procedure has been adopted in several instances, notably those of the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport. I do not think any further explanation of this Amendment is required, except to remind the House that under the new regime of Scottish administration, property which is at present held in the name of the Department of Agriculture—and there is a good deal of it—and the investment fund at present held in connection with National Health Insurance by the Department of Health will also be held by the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 3, leave out "and."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, after "State," to insert, "for Scotland."
This is a purely technical and drafting Amendment. In the Bill as it stands, an Amendment was unnecessarily and, I might almost say, inadvertently made in the Documentary Evidence Act as regards other Secretaries of State than the

Secretary of State for Scotland, and the purpose of the Amendment is to confine the alteration to the scope of the present Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Reorganisation of the General Board of Control.)

3.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, to leave out "six," and to insert "seven."
The object of the Amendment is to increase the number of members of the General Board of Control from six to seven, in addition to the Chairman. We had some discussion on this subject in the Committee, and there was a general feeling that it would add to the usefulness of the board if there were one or two more lay members. I find myself unable to accept the proposal that there should be two additional lay members, but by this Amendment I propose to enlarge the board so as to include one other lay member. The Clause provides for at least two medical commissioners. It is not intended, by this Amendment at all events, to appoint more than two. If the Amendment is adopted, the intention is that the board shall consist of the chairman, who will be an assistant-secretary to the Department of Health; two medical commissioners; one legal commissioner, who will probably be part-time, one representative of the Scottish Education Department and three laymen.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Extension of 9 Geo. 4. c. 25.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, to leave out the Clause.
Hon. Members who took part in the Committee proceedings will recall that this Clause gave rise to a considerable volume of discussion, some of which, I venture to suggest, was a little beside the point. I endeavoured then to explain the very limited purpose of the Clause, and it is right that I should inform the House that I have since received a letter from the Deputy-Keeper of the Signet, representing the Joint Committee of Legal Societies in Scotland, stating that in view of my explanation and of certain further explanations given by my right hon. Friend, the committee no longer regarded


this Clause as raising any general question of principle. Nevertheless I have reason to understand that there are certain hon. Members who still entertain some doubt or dissatisfaction, and in those circumstances my right hon. Friend and I have resolved to take a course, the motive of which and the reason for which I think hon. Members will appreciate, and that is to drop the Clause, not because we are in any way altering the view which we expressed in Committee, but simply because it seems to us undesirable that the time of this House should be taken up in debating a subject which, one way or the other, is of comparatively little practical consequence and is calculated to create the entirely false impression that there is controversy within the ranks of the profession. Without referring further to the merits of the subject I accordingly move the Amendment.

Mr. Mathers: As the Member who first raised this point in Committee, may I say a word of thanks to the Lord Advocate and to his right hon. Friend for the course that they have taken?

Amendment agreed to.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The provisions of the Bill have been fully discussed by the House and in Committee, and the proposals, as amended, have obtained a wide measure of acceptance. I do not propose to outline them again, but there is a technical point which it is right I should make, and this is the opportunity to make it. In Clause 2, Sub-section (8), opportunity has been taken to provide that the method of appointment of the clerks of the Board of Control, that is by the board with the approval of the Secretary of State, shall also extend to the Secretary of the Board of Control. The Secretary's appointment now lies with His Majesty. The change that we are proposing has necessitated, in accordance with precedent, that in order to put the matter in proper form I should have His Majesty's permission for the change, and I have to acquaint the House that I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, that the House may do therein as they

shall think fit. Whereas the appointment before lay with His Majesty, it is now proposed that it should lie with the Board of Control, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is to amend the law governing marriage in Scotland, that is to say civil marriage, for at the very start I wish to make it clear that the Bill in no way interferes with the existing law or practice in regard to marriage by religious ceremony. In Scotland marriages by religious ceremony constitute almost 90 per cent, of the marriages registered, and they are outside the scope of the Bill altogether. The Bill does not deal with religious ceremonies at all. Marriages which are celebrated after banns or after notice given to a registrar are known in Scotland as regular marriages. What the Bill is concerned with is the type of marriage known as "irregular"
For all practical purposes the irregular marriage in Scotland is a marriage by exchange of consent. The principle of Scots law now is that marriage is constituted merely by an interchange of consent. Nothing more is necessary to a valid marriage—no notice, no formality and no record of any kind, and that is an important point. Until 1856 the sole requirement was that the parties should be legally capable of contracting a marriage. This, however, led to run-away marriages by young people south of the Border, and to check these marriages the Marriage (Scotland) Act was passed in 1856. That Act required that one party to a marriage should either have his or her usual place of residence in Scotland at the date of the marriage or have lived there for 21 days previously. There is no other condition besides that.
There has been a growing feeling that the law on this matter left much to be desired. One of my predecessors as Secretary of State, the late Sir Godfrey Collins, set up in 1935 a committee presided over


by Lord Morison to inquire into and report upon the law of Scotland relating to the constitution of marriage and to recommend what changes, if any, were desirable. The committee made a full investigation and reported at the end of1936. It cannot be said that full deliberation has not been given to this very important and rather difficult problem of altering what has been the law for many years in Scotland. The principal recommendation of the committee is that marriage merely by exchange of consent should be abolished and replaced by a simple form of civil marriage, to be contracted in the office of an authorised registrar of births, marriages and deaths, after publication of due notice of intention to marry. No doubt hon. Members have read the report of the committee. What are the considerations which led the committee to this view? I will state them briefly. The evil consequences of marriage by consent, tend to fall into two categories—the evils which may arise from lack of formality, and those which arise from the absence of a proper record.
After all, marriage is among the most important transactions known to the law, and it is indefensible that such a contract can be made simply by the private interchange of consent. But it is far from being a question only of mere legal propriety. It may, for example, turn out some considerable time after a supposed marriage by interchange of consent that the marriage is not a marriage at all. One party may not have been legally capable of contracting marriage. Here the requirement of 21 days' residence in Scotland may prove to be not a safeguard but a stumbling block. The lack of this qualification will invalidate the marriage and may ruin the life of an innocent party. It is within the knowledge of those who practise the law in Scotland that such cases take place. Again, lack of a proper record may make proof of marriage very difficult indeed when it is most important that its validity should be established. If such a marriage is not registered and is disputed it can only be established by proof in the Court of Session of the declaration of consent made by the parties. This proof may obviously be attended by very great and sometimes insurmountable difficulties. Even if the marriage is not disputed, there are many occasions on which it is important to be able to produce proof of marriage, as in

the case of a claim for a widow's pension. Those who are accustomed to the administration of that part of our social services will agree that it is of the greatest importance to have accurate proof of a marriage.

Mr. T. Johnston: It should be made clear that we do give widows' pensions now.

Mr. Colville: I was coming to that point later. The marriage can, it is true, be registered. Some 4,000 irregular marriages are registered annually now. But to secure registration it is necessary to appear before the sheriff, and the costs of such registration are understood to be considerable, that is, about 42s.

Mr. Buchanan: Often more.

Mr. Colville: It is probably the minimum, so I shall say 42s. upwards, and for people of modest means that is not an inconsiderable charge. As long as marriage is simply a matter of mutual consent, it is clearly impracticable by any legal enactment to make sure that every marriage will in fact be registered. A large number of marriages by consent are not registered now. The extent to which this may be the case is shown by figures of marriages at Gretna given in the committee's report. It is true that the circumstances there are rather special. Gretna Green has had a name, whether enviable or unenviable, in history and romance for a long time. It may be that the conditions are exceptional, but I shall quote the number of registered marriages there to show how many such marriages are unregistered. The committee report that according to the proprietor's books at Gretna Green there were 2,295 marriages performed at the blacksmith's shop at Gretna Green in the 10 years 1926 to 1935, and probably other similar marriages took place elsewhere in Gretna. But only 419 of the Gretna marriages were registered. This is a case where romance ought to give place to good sense. No doubt the evils connected with this type of marriage are specially prominent at Gretna, but legally Gretna is in exactly the same position as any other part of Scotland, and these evils may arise in connection with a marriage by consent contracted elsewhere.
The essential point is that marriage is a contract which, above all others, ought


to be certain. Marriage by the mere interchange of consent without any previous notice or formality introduces large possibilities of uncertainty which may have deplorable results. In no other European country is it possible to contract marriage in such a manner. I have already said that almost all irregular marriages are marriages by consent, but I must refer briefly to two other kinds of irregular marriages. The first of these is marriage by promise subsequente copula, that is promise followed by intercourse. The committee remark that this form of marriage is entirely at variance with the traditions and customs of the Scottish people. Very few marriages in fact have been so contracted, and it is proposed by Clause 5 of the Bill, in accordance with the recommendation of the committee, to abolish this form of marriage.
The remaining form is marriage by cohabitation, or habit and repute. This, also, the committee propose should be abolished. Here is a case in which we depart from the views of the committee. The committee propose that this type of marriage should be abolished, not because of any particular evils attaching to it but because marriage on this basis is very difficult to establish and the case is of rare occurrence. This recommendation has received very careful and prolonged consideration, and we have come to the conclusion that this form of marriage may serve a useful purpose and that on balance it would be better not to do away with it.
It may happen to be necessary to establish the marriage of two people who have lived together for many years where it may be difficult, if not impossible, to produce evidence of the actual marriage. In such a case it is useful that the law should provide that account should be taken of what may amount to presumptive evidence of marriage. If the doctrine of marriage by habit and repute were abandoned it would be necessary to make some alternative provision on this point, as is done in all other legal systems. The existing doctrine does, however, meet the situation very well, and on balance it is considered that this form of marriage should be retained. I do not expect that we shall get through this point without some discussion, but I express my view that there would be a risk of hardship if we abolished this form of marriage, and

in spite of the view put forward by the Committee I am recommending that it should be retained while the other two types of irregular marriage should be abolished.
Having decided to recommend that marriage by consent should be abolished, the Committee fully realised that it was necessary to provide an alternative method of marriage which should be free from the objections to the present system and should also be as cheap and as simple as possible. The method which they propose is embodied in Clause 1 of the Bill. That Clause provides for a form of civil marriage in the office of an authorised registrar of births, deaths and marriages. Particular registrars will be authorised for this purpose by the Registrar-General for Scotland in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-section (6). These are designed to ensure that adequate facilities for marriage before a registrar shall exist throughout Scotland. Under the new procedure each of the parties to the intended marriage will require to give notice of such intention to the authorised registrar within whose district such party has resided for 15 days immediately preceding. This notice will require to be published, in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Notice (Scotland) Act, 1878, for seven days. In the case where both parties reside in the same district only one notice is required. As soon as a certificate or certificates of publication of notice have been issued, the parties will be free to marry in the office of any authorised registrar.
Under the Bill all marriages in the office of an authorised registrar will be registered forthwith, and the difficulties which at times arise from failure to secure proof of marriage in these irregular marriages will thereby be obviated. I wish to emphasise the point that a central feature of this reform is to get over the difficulty of lack of registration; it is, perhaps, the most important part of the Bill. A fee of 5s. will be payable in respect of a marriage and a fee of 2s. 6d. for each notice. If therefore the two parties live in the same registrar's district the total cost will be 7s. 6d., and if they live in different districts and two notices are necessary the cost will be 10s. That will be considerably cheaper than the so called "marriage before the Sheriff," to which I have referred earlier, and which costs


42s. or upwards. The facilities will also be increased, because the offices of authorised registrars will be much more numerous than the Sheriff Courts, probably five times as numerous, and the convenience of people who wish to adopt this form of marriage will in that way be greatly facilitated. Therefore, upon the grounds of convenience, of cheapness and, of course, the all-important question of registration, these provisions are to be strongly recommended.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What sort of distribution of registrars' offices does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate? Will there be an office in each big town?

Mr. Colville: Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise that point later, and it can be replied to then.

Mr. Buchanan: Will there be any form of oath?

Mr. Colville: I think not. I am outlining the main provisions of the Bill, and any points which hon. Members may raise will be dealt with later in the general reply. One further possibility remains to be provided for, and that is the case where, on account of illness or other unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, for example, the necessity for a sudden departure abroad, it is desired that a marriage should take place at short notice. Under the proposals of the Bill, marriage, whether celebrated by a minister or contracted before an authorised registrar, will require to have been preceded by banns or notice. Special machinery to dispense with this requirement in the cases I have mentioned is provided by Clause 2. The provision is that in such exceptional cases the sheriff or sheriff-substitute may issue a licence which will have the effect of dispensing with the proclamation of banns or the publication of notice.

Mr. Cassells: What is to be the position if time is fleeting and there is no opportunity of obtaining the necessary authority from a sheriff-substitute? That is where trouble will arise.

Mr. Colville: Perhaps the hon. Member will develop that point in his speech. I think the Clause has been drawn wide enough to meet most practical cases. In making this provision we have it in mind that the general rule as to notice ought to

be adhered to, and only departed from in exceptional cases, and I believe the Clause will, in fact, give the necessary latitude to meet any exceptional cases. However, that is perhaps rather a Committee point. Clause 3 deals with Quaker marriages and removes difficulties which have arisen in regard to one section of the Marriage Notice (Scotland) Act, 1878. Clause 4 provides that a regular marriage which has been registered is not to be questioned in any legal proceedings on the ground that the person by whom such marriage was celebrated was not competent or qualified to do so. I hope the House will agree that that is a question which should be regarded as definitely settled. Great hardship would result to innocent people who believe that a marriage had been carried out by a fully qualified person if it were suggested later that it was not a marriage because that person was not so qualified. Clause 5 effects the abolition of the two forms of irregular marriage which I mentioned earlier. Clause 6 simplifies the provision for the registration of irregular marriages established by Declarator in the Court of Session. Clause 8 safeguards the validity of marriages contracted before the date on which the new legislation comes into operation. As I explained in my opening remarks, the Bill does not affect the existing law or practice in regard to marriages by religious ceremony.
Finally, in future, apart from the extremely rare case of a marriage established by habit and repute, all marriages will be regular marriages either by religious ceremony as at present—and these cover about go per cent, of the marriages in Scotland—or in the office of an authorised registrar under the provisions of the Bill. The proposals of the Bill have received a wide degree of support in Scotland. It cannot be said that they have been rushed. They have been conceived as a result of a careful investigation by a committee whose findings have been known for some time. It is a serious matter to make a change in a law of Scotland which has functioned for so many years and around which there has arisen a certain amount of glamour and romance—although a good deal of it I would describe as spurious—but I confidently recommend the Bill to the House as a Measure which will in all good common sense make for the happiness of many people in Scotland in the future.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: This is pre-eminently a subject which we shall all agree ought not to be made the sport of party politics. Probably there are differences of opinion about it which cut across all divisions in party politics, and we may encounter difficulties on the Committee stage. So far as I personally am concerned, and I speak only for myself, there is one part of the Bill as to which I cordially agree with the right hon. Gentleman's attitude and disagree with the recommendations of the Committee, although I happen to be on very good terms with the members of that Committee. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we ought not to interfere with marriages "by habit and repute," and I do so not only on the ground put forward by the right hon. Gentleman as to the difficulty which arises when persons are claiming widows' or orphans' pensions. If we take away recognition of the marriage by habit and repute we shall condemn any number of poor people to penury by depriving them of rights which they have enjoyed in Scotland for many years in connection with widows' and orphans' pensions. When a man and a woman living together have been known locally and accepted locally as husband and wife, it is surely wrong of us to interfere and to say that because they have not gone through a form of regular marriage they and their children are to be deprived of certain benefits.
The same observation applies with regard to workmen's compensation. It would be the greatest scandal if this House, under the guise of reforming the marriage laws, were to take away from the orphan children or the widow of a man who had been killed in a pit explosion the right to claim compensation simply because the widow could not produce "marriage lines." If alterations are to be made in the law and custom as affecting the marriage tie they should be the subject of very careful examination in this High Court of Parliament, uninfluenced by considerations of sectarian alignments of any kind. As I understand it, marriage is a civil contract and very often a religious sacrament. We on this side of the House do not intend to divide against the Second Reading of this Bill but we shall have some observations to make and some questions to ask of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Lord

Advocate, and doubtless it will be found that some of my hon. Friends will disagree with my personal attitude upon certain points.
The chief purpose for which the Morison Committee was set up was to stop the flagrant commercialisation of marriage at Gretna. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is evident that there is no virtue in the anvil at all, and that such a marriage need not take place at Gretna. The same kind of farce could go on anywhere.

Mr. Buchanan: In Kirkintilloch.

Mr. Johnston: Or Gorbals. Something like £1,300 is admitted by one petition as having been drawn from poor people who imagined that they were having some romantic sacrament of marriage, when, as a matter of fact, they might be having no marriage at all, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, 419 only have been registered out of almost 3,000. That means that nearly 2,600 of them have never been registered and have only been methods of procuring seduction. With these facts staring us in the face, it is obvious that something must be done to secure a civil register of marriages in Scotland. That is what the Bill is trying to do, to get a record, and anybody who cannot get a record, properly speaking, is not married according to this Bill.
I am not sure that we ought not to endeavour to get the Government to go a step farther than they have gone on the question of irregular marriages. Supposing a man and a woman decide to accept each other as husband and wife, it may be that they have tried to go and give the requisite number of days' notice, but they have been unable, because of the physical disability of one of the parties, to go to the Sheriff, where you require notice to be given. Therefore, it may be that the only way in which they can be married is by a declaration of consent in the presence of witnesses. If that is the last resort, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in a case like that the marriage might afterwards be registered by one of the parties? Supposing one of them died, would it not be proper to permit such a marriage to be registered? Supposing a baby comes, or it may be that there are half-a-dozen different sets of domestic situations to be faced, what harm would be done in a case like that? I believe


this point was raised in another place when the Bill was going through Committee there. I heard the reply given then by the Government, and I did not understand it. I therefore ask the Lord Advocate, when he replies, to give us a reasoned statement why, in a case of that kind, they could not agree to legitimate the marriage.
There is one further point on which I should like some information. The committee recommended 11 specific religious organisations which should have an equal right with the Church of Scotland to proclaim banns in the pulpit in Scotland. The committee were unanimous on that point. As the law now stands, only the Church of Scotland has the right to proclaim banns. When I used to sit and listen to these proclamations being given, I used to wonder of what utility they were. There was a time in old Scotland when every village was a Church of Scotland village and where, when announcements were made in the pulpit that it was the intention of So-and-so to marry So-and-so, that was the most valid possible announcement, but that does not apply in large cities like Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, where a notice in the pulpit of a parish church might be valid so far as the members of that church were concerned, but for two Baptists, or a Baptist and a Presbyterian, or a Methodist and someone else, obviously a proclamation in the parish church would be of no service at all. The proclamation rights are retained for the parish church by this Bill, but the committee's recommendation to bring in Jews, Catholics, and members of the United Free Church, and all the rest of them has been turned down, and I think we should be told why that recommendation has not been acceded to.
One more point, and I have finished. The one weak part of this Bill is that it is so confoundedly legal that it is difficult for a layman to grasp it. I took the trouble last night to look up the last report of a committee in Scotland which inquired into the marriage law. It was in 1849, a long time ago, and the then Lord Advocate was in the chair. The first thing that that committee did at that time was to decide, by the narrow majority of one, that nobody but lawyers were to be heard. They ruled out evidence from a man like Dr. Norman Macleod, and

I am sure we should all have welcomed a record of what he would have said on such a subject. To-day, these phrases about cum subsequente copula, de presenti, and so on, make it difficult for us to understand all the implications of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman could assure us that there will be no hardships in the case of irregular marriages between people driven by sheer necessity, and that they will not be penalised, but that they will be able subsequently to register the marriage, I, for one, would be satisfied with the Bill.
I cordially congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking every possible step to knock the bogus smithy at Gretna out of existence, and I am sure we are all agreed about that. It was just about the last word in commercialised robbery that has been allowed to go on in Scotland. We are all agreed that there should be, so far as possible, a civil record of a union between a man and a woman, in the interests of the State, of society, of the children, and of the parties concerned. I am convinced that the great majority of people in Scotland want a religious sanctity to surround their marriage, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why he has confined the proclamation of the banns to the Church of Scotland.

4.38 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I wish to join in the congratulations which the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has offered to the Secretary of State on the introduction of this Bill. The irregular marriage, and in particular the Gretna Green marriage, has become a scandal in Scotland, and my hon. Friends and I are glad that the right hon. Gentleman has tackled it. I did observe two differences between the Bill and the report of the Committee, and both have been referred to in the two speeches to which we have listened. The first was the failure of the Government to adopt the recommendation that banns should be called in churches of other denominations than the Church of Scotland. I must say that it seems to me that the case has been most pertinently argued by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me, and I do not think I can add to the weight of what he said. I should have thought that it would obviously have been a good thing, particularly in large


cities, that other Churches also should have that right, if only on practical grounds, because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, when names are called out in a parish church in a big city, they might be quite unknown to any persons there. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will explain to the House why that recommendation has not been given effect to.
The other departure from the report of the Committee is the retention of the marriage by habit and repute, and there I think the right hon. Gentleman's decision, which seems to have brought a sword into the family of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, seems to have brought peace to the parties in this House and to have been generally approved. Certainly I would like to express my approval of it. It seems to me that this is a very good Bill and though I do not think there is likely to be an opportunity for voting for it on the Second Reading, it is certainly one in regard to which I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing my support.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Cassells: I think we all agree that this Bill is a distinctly forward step. At the same time, although it possesses certain redeeming qualities, it contains, in my opinion, two definitely backward steps. It is of vital importance to realise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) pointed out, that marriage is a consensual contract, and accordingly it is essential for society that the terms and nature of the contract should be fully appreciated. There is undoubtedly a redeeming benefit under this Bill, and that benefit is the sweeping away for all time of that ignominious blot upon our Scottish judicial system, the system of marriages, if one might so term them, over the anvil at Gretna Green. It is well known in Scotland that there has been a considerable volume of public opinion, not just within recent years, but for many years past, entirely antagonistic to the methods which have been adopted at Gretna Green, and I consider that it is quite fitting and proper that we should make it clear that in adopting the attitude which we are adopting in this Bill, we are not endeavouring in any way to victimise any person or persons in Gretna Green without the most complete justification.

If hon. Members will refer to page 11 of the report, they will find the committee's findings particularised with regard to certain important questions which were asked of the attendant and his wife from Gretna Green. The first question referred particularly to the matter of 21 days' domicile, and the answer which was given was this:
I cannot follow people away, and I am not going to do it.
If ever there was conclusive proof of shocking laxity on the part of the gentleman in question, you have it there. Let me follow that up by one other illustration spoken to by the Sheriff Clerk of Dumfriesshire, where a petition was presented for a warrant to register. The committee say:
On investigation it transpired that neither party could speak a word of English. On the Sheriff Clerk intimating that the appearance of the attendant would be necessary to explain how he had been able to perform the ceremony, in view of the inability of the parties to speak English, no further steps were taken in the application. Before the committee the attendant professed to being able to recollect the case. He declared that the couple came from Finland and that they first came to him with an interpreter. He then explained that they did not have the necessary residential qualification. They thereafter resided in Scotland for 21 days, and then returned to be married. 'By that time,' he said, 'they could speak the language. They learned the words of the ceremony in 21 days.' The interpreter was also present.
If any sensible thinking human being believes that people can come from Finland knowing nothing of our language and that after the expiry of 14 days they can come back able to speak the language intelligently and to understand it fully, then the sooner the right of the blacksmith is taken away for all time, the better. Lord Pitman, in a case in the Court of Session, some time ago dealing with Gretna marriages used the following words:
There is no special virtue in a Gretna marriage, and the so-called certificate of marriage, issued by the so-called priest, who, by the way, is not even a blacksmith but only a custodian of the smithy, employed by the owner, is just a piece of humbug.
It is a piece of humbug, and it redounds to the credit of this House and the people of Scotland that they have taken a firm and resolute stand in connection with this problem.
The second redeeming feature which the Bill possesses is the retention of the


right to establish marriage by habit and repute. The Committee, in its wisdom, make a recommendation suggesting that marriage by habit and repute should be rendered illegal. The right to prove marriage by habit and repute has been part of our Scottish judicial system, I believe, since the year 1503. It is perfectly true to say that marriage by habit and repute in certain very isolated cases does tend to lead to abuse but, as was very properly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), it is vitally important that we should retain the right to establish marriage in these circumstances.
Perhaps I might give one typical illustration from my own personal experience, completely vindicating the necessity for the retention of marriage by habit and repute. It concerned a case where a workman resided in a village in Stirlingshire, known as Cowie. He was in the employ of the Alloa Coal Company. For many years he had lived with a certain lady, and they were known by the people in the village as, let us say, Mr. and Mrs. A.B. The lady bore a family to this particular man. He was fatally injured in a colliery accident. With the law as it then stood—it was before the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925—if the child or the children of those people had gone out into the world as illegitimate, they would not legally have been entitled to participate in any compensation fund. Fortunately—this is where, I think, the Secretary of State for Scotland to a certain limited extent went wrong on one point—there is a method in our Scottish judicial system which entitles one to establish marriage in the Sheriff Court. You do not need in every case to follow out the lines indicated, namely, by declarator in the Court of Session. We are able in arbitration proceedings under workmen's compensation proceedings in the Sheriff Court definitely to raise questions of status and to have the question determined by the judge of first instance. In this case we were able to do that, with the result that the claim was admitted and compensation was paid.
These are the redeeming features of the Bill, but when one passes from them I am bound to say that there are other points which call for the most complete and justifiable criticism. Take, for example, the point which my right hon.

Friend made. What is to be the position in a case where the Sheriff is not available, the Sheriff-Substitute is not available, the Honorary Sheriff is not available, and even the registrar or, as is mentioned in Clause 1, the registrar's assistant is not available in an emergency? A man becomes suddenly ill. The lady in question is pregnant by him, and it is highly desirable and absolutely necessary that an immediate marriage ceremony shall be carried through. I say this with complete confidence, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point I am making. It is not a question of politics but of trying to put a helpful point of view, so that the Measure can go through and work satisfactorily. There is no machinery of any kind in the Bill to meet that sort of case.
A point like this was raised before the committee by one of the persons giving evidence, a gentleman named Mr. Kenneth A. Boreland, a very well known Glasgow solicitor. The suggestion he made on this point was that in these given circumstances the parties should be entitled to enlist the services of a justice of the peace, or a minister, if possible, or even, a worse evil, a member of the Faculty of Solicitors.

Mr. Buchanan: Why not a doctor?

Mr. Cassells: Or even a doctor. I hope that between now and the next stage the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point and endeavour, if possible, to bring in machinery sufficient to meet it.

Sir Douglas Thomson: What is the position at the present time? Does that difficulty arise in England now?

Mr. Cassells: I am coming to that point. What I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is this: what justification is there for taking away from the members of the Faculty of Solicitors a right which they have possessed for very many years? The only justification which I can see is contained in the report of the committee, on page 7, where they say:
The procedure is somewhat expensive as compared with the cost of a regular marriage.
So far as I can make out, as the days go on, the greater become the efforts of the Government to make the position of the practising solicitor almost impossible. Despite what the Lord Advocate said today with regard to another Clause in


another Bill, there was on that particular occasion a very definite effort made to make the position of the practising solicitor more difficult. This particular ceremony costs £2,or slightly more, and from that £2 there falls to be deducted a fee of 10s. payable to the sheriff clerk. Surely, in these given circumstances there is no reason in the world why the practice should not be allowed to continue, but the cat seems to be out of the bag when we see this statement in the report:
It is often associated with an unfortunate feature, the advertisements in the Press of so-called marriage agents, who tout for marriage business.
I am not suggesting that there is no justification for that statement. There is. One has only to take up a Scottish evening newspaper or any Scottish daily newspaper to see regularly certain members of the Faculty of Solicitors advertising, but those members who do advertise are definitely in the minority. In my own town there is no question of members of the Faculty of Solicitors putting any advertisements in the newspapers. People come to us naturally. Is it now going to be said that the majority of the members of the profession have to be penalised because there are a few black sheep? The right hon. Gentleman well knows that we have in our Scottish judicial system a committee of discipline under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, and the function of that committee of discipline is to deal with any difficult circumstances or complaints made against individual solicitors. As a member of the Faculty of Solicitors I am bound to say that, although it does not mean anything to me personally, I do consider that there is not the slightest justification for this particular step suggested in the Bill.
As far as I can make out, the difficulty in the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland is the question of registration. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) pointed out, the people are actually legally married before any registration takes place at all. My suggestion is this. I do not object to the system in Clause1 in regard to the registrar, but please still allow the practising member of the Faculty of Solicitors to do what he has been doing in the past. He has undoubtedly been a valuable member of society in matters such as this, and it cannot be said that he has failed in any

way. One knows that the people come to the office, they make a declaration, they sign the document, the witnesses sign the document and forthwith the same morning arrangements are made with the sheriffs clerk and the various contracting parties go before the sheriff and, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out, they take the oath. Thereafter authority is given by the Sheriff or the Sheriff-Substitute, as the case may be, to permit of the registration of that particular marriage. Assuming, for the sake of convenience, that you cut out the Sheriff-Substitute entirely, could it not be that you could make it compulsory upon the law agent within a certain period of time, and you could stipulate the period of time, when he shall be legally bound to record that particular marriage, and if he fails in any way to comply with that stipulation he should be subject to certain penal consequences.
There are other points which are capable of being raised in the Committee stage, but at the present time I think that we ought to have some reply from the Lord Advocate on the very proper point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling. What is to be the position in the case mentioned by him? There is absolutely nothing in the Bill to cover that particular case. For example, we find that in one of the Clauses regulations are laid down with regard to the working hours of the registrar. That means that the Department will say: "Your office will open at, say, 10 o'clock, and close at 4 o'clock." What is to be the position after that hour? I hope that what has been said will serve some useful purpose. Speaking on behalf of the Faculty of Solicitors, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we appreciate the fact that the Bill has been brought forward and, although it has certain points of justifiable criticism, we welcome wholeheartedly the fact that for all time that blot on our Scottish judicial system, marriage over the anvil at Gretna Green is to disappear.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am not able to follow the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) in his discussion of the trials and troubles of solicitors. I always admire a man who stands up for his craft, and the hon. Member has undoubtedly made a powerful appeal on


behalf of the solicitors of Scotland. I did not know they were so hardly done by, but one is always learning. I think the Lord Advocate is the only other bachelor present in the House, so that I feel I must stand by him. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has lost all hope of finding a wife. He would make a very sympathetic and tactful husband. Personally, I have not lost hope. I always looked forward, if that event took place, to making a romantic midnight dash to the anvil at Gretna Green, and I cannot help shedding a tear to think that that opportunity has now been taken from me. I understand that the ceremony of marriage is to be made easier. I find that in Clause 2, Subsection (6), there is to be a registrar's office in each large burgh, in each small burgh and in as many parts of the landward area as the registrar may think fit. What is more, I understand that this can all now be done for 10s., and if the lady happens to live in the same parish you can reduce the sum to 7s. 6d. That is a very satisfactory state of affairs. I would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon encouraging us bachelors upon our difficult and thorny path, and would thank him for having introduced a Bill which all of us so unanimously support.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I would like to thank the Secretary of State for Scotland for introducing this Measure and, like others, to promise him general support. I should like to address myself first to the subject of the notice to be given in regard to marriage. In this Bill the present system is retained of the Church of Scotland's proclamation of banns, so far as churches are concerned, holding the field. There are really three ways of disposing of this question. The first is that contained in the Measure here. Lord Alness, speaking in another place, said in effect that this arrangement was a slur on the other churches in Scotland, and that it was a grievance which was being increasingly felt by these other churches. That was said long ago in the Royal Commission of 1868, when Lord Justice Clerk Inglis, afterwards Lord President Inglis, said:
It is not unreasonably complained of by the Scottish Nonconformists, who are married by their own ministers, as being in their case vexatious as well as useless.

Without dwelling on the point, the real slur and the real grievance and the real vexation to us is not that there is this special privilege, but that a privileged church exists at all in Scotland. To me it does not matter a great deal whether they come and say, "We will rectify this little grievance" or not, so long as they continue to perpetrate a great fundamental injustice. If you have a State or established church, a church at the service of the State, it should surely be for just such a subject as this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) said, it wears a strange aspect nowadays. It always seemed to me to be something of a disturbance of the spirit and atmosphere of worship. Also you have this incongruity that you have people coming there to hear these "cries" read out, and for years perhaps they have never been in a church. It always seemed to me something of an intrusion, and it is something which now, if the people were prepared for it, could be served in a much better way.
The second way of dealing with it is that adopted by the report, that all churches should be brought in, that all the dissenting churches should be brought in. I have several remarks to make on that proposal, which was recommended in the report but is not adopted by the Government. My first question is, do these churches really desire it? For my own part, we have been so long accustomed to count it an unjust prerogative of the Church of Scotland that many of us are not anxious for it, although I am not declaring against it without further consideration. It might be interesting, however, if I were to read the decision of the Assembly of my own Church, the United Free Church of Scotland, on this proposal when it was made in the report. In referring to the extension of the liberty to proclaim banns to these other churches, they said:
This is a move in the direction of religious equality, but is not Church proclamation as a means of publicity quite obsolete? Marriage, so far as the law is concerned, is a purely civil contract, and publication at the office of the registrar should suffice for all purposes. If greater publicity is desired, why not adopt the modern procedure of intimation in some public newspaper circulating in the district? If any person desires an intimation in Church or any religious ceremony in connection with the marriage, that should be a matter for the


Church and the parties to arrange, and a minister should not act as a civil official in connection with the contract of marriage.
That is only saying at much greater length what was said by Lord Thankerton in another place. He was five years the Procurator of the Church of Scotland. He said in another place, on 14th December last—and I do not quote his words— that this was not a religious requisite at all, but a civil requisite.
My second observation on the bringing in of all the churches is, has the report covered them all in the list? To begin with, there is no mention made of the Salvation Army. I believe they have some 500 ministers or officers empowered to perform a ceremony like this, and they have a very large number of corps, or churches, shall we call them, throughout the land. To refer to Lord Thankerton again, he said he could name five or six churches in addition to the Salvation Army. That would be just one of the difficulties if we should depart from what is in the Bill and give, as I am willing to give, some consideration to that proposal. This should be borne in mind: that perhaps Members who are unfamiliar with Scottish customs may be surprised when I say that only a small minority of the marriages in Scotland are in a church at all. In a very long life—I am nearing my jubilee now as a minister—I have not married more than 20 couples in the church. It is generally in their own home, and occasionally in a hotel.

Mr. Buchanan: And in the vestry.

Mr. Barr: Yes. I speak somewhat familiarly because, although I do not say that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) attended my church often, his mother was a constant attendant in the front of the gallery. I am afraid that my sermons to the young were not always quite effective. Again, there is the question of the disturbance of worship. If there is any intention to bring in the recommendation in the report of the Committee and it is to serve any purpose, proclamation should be only of those who' are members or adherents of the particular church, as Lord Alness proposed in another place. That should apply not only to the miscellaneous group of churches, but to the Church of Scotland as well. If such an Amendment should be thought of or the report should be given effect to, I would differ seriously from

what is in the report, that it should be according to the regulations of the Church of Scotland as made out in 1932. If the other churches were to be brought in, they must be brought in with equal status, and with full powers to make their own regulations with the approval of the Registrar-General. While my prejudice is against accepting it as commended by the report, and I am inclined rather more to favour the proposals of the Government, I still retain an open mind, but I can see the great difficulty of extending it so widely.
The third matter is that of the public notice at the registry. That is known as the Marriage Notice (Scotland) Act, 1878, Chapter 43. Under that form of notice at the registrar's office a notice of the approach of an intended marriage is put up in a conspicuous place on the door or on the outer wall of the office. Now that notice is declared to be of equal value and authority with that made from the pulpit. It is one of my own lifelong regrets that I was "cried" in the church instead of being proclaimed on the board. It is a thing you cannot remedy very easily, but at the time I could not help feeling that the lady would feel that it was not giving her sufficient status if it were put on the board. But she said she never expected but that I would put it on the board; so she was more democratic than I was then. I hope that that will be the main form of notice—I believe that the Government take this view of the matter—and that this form of notice will become more common with the advent of the new form of civic marriage, and that we shall ultimately aim at a proper public proclamation.
Another point which I wish to raise is that contained in Clause 3 dealing with the usages of the Society of Friends. Some may wonder why this matter is brought into the Bill, but it is in most of the Marriage Acts both for England and for Scotland. The Government are not quite fair, and not quite so advanced as they should be in their legislation in this regard. Perhaps I might trouble the House for one minute or so in regard to this position. It is away back in 1695, in the reign of King William, that there was the first Act that I know of saying that members of the Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers, could contract marriages according to their usages, provided that the parties to the marriage


were both members of the same society. In 1844 that position was extended to Ireland and to the Jews, but both the parties had to be members of the society or profess the Jewish religion. An advance was made in 1860 in the general legislation for Great Britain, that Quaker marriages could be solemnised in England or Ireland where one only, or where neither, of the parties was a member of the Society of Friends,
provided only that the party or parties who shall not be a member or members of the said society shall profess with, or be of the persuasion of, the said society.
They might not be full members or even adherents, but they needed to make a profession.
In England in 1872, all that was cancelled and those who were officiating in the Society of Friends could perform the ceremony for those who did not adhere to that Society, but might have a certain desire to be married by a Quaker. In the Clause now before us the Government do not go so far as the English law. They extend the older provision, in that one of the parties must be a Quaker or an attender at their ceremonies and services, but the Government do not go the length of giving the power to the Society of Friends to marry those who are not connected at all with the denomination. I am aware that in the Scottish law of 1878 —and I speak subject to the correction of the Lord Advocate in these matters— the Section runs thus:
and every such marriage is hereby declared and affirmed as a regular marriage, provided that the parties to such marriage be both of the said society or both persons professing the Jewish religion respectively.
In Scotland, in 1878, they still had to be both members, whereas in 1872 in England the fuller freedom had already been given to Quakers. I am well aware that Scotland has always lagged behind in matters of religious tolerance, and that the Presbyterians have lagged behind the Independents in that regard. I hope this Clause will be discussed in Committee, and be changed so as to go at least as far as the legislation for England went in 1872, when it cancelled the requirement that the parties must profess the tenets of the Society of Friends.
In the last place, I come to the Gretna Green abuses. I have a considerable

knowledge of that district because I had a brother-in-law who was minister there for many years. I agree with the report that many of the relics are spurious. I know that I cannot refer to a case that is pending at the moment between two of these institutions, but, if I may say so, it seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. These ceremonies are said to be performed in the old blacksmith's shop, but there never was a blacksmith's shop in the old days in this connection, nor were the marriages performed over an anvil. In the earliest days it was some old soldier, a weaver, or a fisherman in the village who performed the ceremonies; and if he was called a blacksmith in those days, it was not because "his brow was wet with honest sweat," but because he welded couples together. That was the origin, I understand, of the phrase that he was a blacksmith. Robert Elliott was one of those famous welders, and in a book which he issued called "Gretna Green Memoirs" he claimed to have united 7,744 couples between 1811 and 1839. He describes the form of ceremony he had.
In those days it was a kind of aristocratic fashion to get married at Gretna Green. Lord Deerhurst was married there; Lord Chief Justice Erskine was married there in 1815, and in 1816 he was in the Law Courts seeking to prove that Gretna Green marriages did not hold in law. He was unsuccessful in that contention. Lord Westmorland was married in that way, and he would have failed in his runaway purpose, had he not fired a shot at one of the horses in the carriage in which the bride's father was pursuing him. These marriages were a most lucrative adventure in those early days. Lord Erskine paid £20, but these other two noblemen paid 100 guineas each. They were aristocratic clients. Now, as has been pointed out, Gretna was the place for run-away marriages because, without any residence to begin with in Scotland, you could be married on the spot. As has been stated by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Marriage (Scotland) Act, 1856, was designed to prevent and to check those run-away marriages by insisting upon the residence in Scotland of one of the parties for 21 days next preceding such marriage.
There are two ways in which the Gretna Green laxity prevailed. The first was by


getting round the residence qualification, which was not observed, as was stated in the report read by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells). Within my own knowledge a Member of Parliament was married at Gretna Green, and I took the trouble to go into the Library of the House where I found that he had made 26 Divisions during the 21 days that he was supposed to be resident in Scotland. It is true that he was aided in his Divisions by an all-night sitting, but the validity of his marriage could have been questioned at once on that ground. Those of us who represent Scotland are in the habit of being a good deal in Scotland and a good deal here, but we have not yet attained what was attained in that case, the power of making numerous Divisions in this House and yet being in continuous residence in Scotland. Next, there was the laxity of registration—about which figures have been given—with its disastrous effects. I am very glad that these abuses are in the way of being ended. Nothing could be further from the sanctity that is rightly attached to marriage. The Roman Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament, and the Protestants hold it in equally high regard. Such places as Gretna Green have tended to bring the whole institution of marriage into discredit and scandal, and even into contempt.
It remains that I should say one or two words more on the civil marriage that is proposed. The report proposes that these civil marriage facilities should be introduced in certain populous districts in Scotland, whereas Clause 1 (6) states that there are to be
reasonable facilities in every part of Scotland for marriages in accordance with this Section.
What pleases me much more is that it is emphasised in the Bill—it cannot be over-emphasised—that these civil marriages are to be counted as regular marriages. There has been a great deal of confusion and injustice in the past in the use of the words "regular" and "irregular." The form of marriage by consent was according to the law of Scotland, and such marriages were lawful, yet I know there was a measure of reproach in speaking of all those non-religious marriages as irregular marriages. I have known a minister of religion flout one of his members and taunt him that

he had made an irregular marriage, whereas the marriage ceremony that had been conducted in that case was just as lawful and, for special reasons, may have been just as worthy as the marriage status of the minister himself. It is definitely emphasised in Clause 4 that such marriages are to be valid and regular in all respects. I am pleased to notice that in another place Lord Strathcona, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, emphasised in the same way that all these marriages will be regular marriages. I should like to add not only that I would put no inferior status on these civil marriages, but that I know many men who are devoted sincerely to religion and who hold that one solution of some of these difficulties is that there should be a universal civil marriage, and that those who desire should have a religious service imposed upon it.
My great predecessor, in my ministry of Govan, the Reverend Dr. Howie, who was one of the most evangelical ministers, held the view both that notice should be on the board, and that there should be a universal civil marriage, those only who desired it having a religious service superimposed. I am not advocating that; I take the framework of the Bill; but it is a little disconcerting to see the numbers who come to go through a religious form and take religious vows, but who otherwise have no connection with the Church, and make no profession of religion. I believe that the whole subject would gain in sincerity and in power if the civil marriage became more general, with, in the case of those who desire it, the religious ceremony superimposed upon it. It is for the Church to advocate the religious value and the sanctity of the religious part of the service. I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland the statement, which I know is accurate, that 90 per cent. still have the religious service, and, even if the civil marriage should become very widespread in Scotland, and it should be left to those who desire it to have in addition a religious service, that would only enhance the value of the religious conviction, and would put the religious practice on a voluntary basis,. on which it should, most of all, repose.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Robert Gibson: If it were necessary for me to apologise for taking up a little-of the time of the House on this occasion,.


the apology might be that, when I took silk in1931, although my clerk did not say that I had the most lucrative practice at the Scottish Bar, he claimed that I certainly had the most extensive, and a large part of that practice dealt with cases having relation to the subject-matter of this Bill. And his claim was never disputed. Accordingly, certain parts of the Bill have impressed themselves on me as giving cause for very great concern. When the report of the committee was first published, I made certain statements which were published in the Press, and, in the Scottish Letter of the "Sunday Times," mention was made of those statements and the view was therein expressed that there would be considerable opposition to the Bill if it proceeded along the lines of the report.
Two characteristics, at any rate, stand out regarding the constitution of marriage in Scotland, which make such constitution distinctly different from what appertains in England, and perhaps this may interest the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson), who asked a question earlier in the discussion. These two characteristics are, first, that in Scotland a marriage may take place in any place; and, secondly, that it may take place at any hour of the day, and that either in the presence of and through the instrumentality of a minister of religion or no. These Scottish liberties are very valuable, and ought to be retained. They are struck at very seriously by Clause 5 of the Bill, which abolishes marriage by declaration de presenti, and also marriage by promise subsequente copula. In place thereof, Clause 1 introduces a novel form of marriage into the law of Scotland, but let it be observed that it is marriage in the office of an authorised registrar, and nowhere else. Therefore, it is limited to place. And it is also strictly limited as to time, because Sub-section (5) of Clause 1 provides for a limitation to:
the hours during which registrars shall be required to give attendance for the purposes of this Section.
In my humble submission, that is not an adequate counterpart of what is taken away. I do not at all seek to support any of the excesses that have been so generally condemned in regard to Gretna, but I do ask the House and the right hon. Gentleman opposite to give careful

attention to the following considerations. It may be claimed that this new form of civil marriage is of a national type, that it is in accordance with the Socialist principle; and secondly—

Mr. Kirkwood: What principle did you say?

Mr. Gibson: This sudden conversion of the Secretary of State for Scotland to Socialism may be quoted against him with deadly effect at some future time. At present, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells), solicitors do business by carrying through marriages by declaration. It is usual, where statutory restrictions are placed on persons practising a profession, that those who are practising should have their rights carefully preserved. That was the case with regard to notaries; it was the case with regard to dentists; about a year ago it was the case with regard to architects; and only yesterday, in a Bill that was brought before the House and read a First time, it was the case with regard to hairdressers. But here there has been an example of nationalisation without compensation, and I would respectfully suggest to right hon. Gentlemen on the other side that -they might dilute their rather strong draught of Socialism with a dose of Fabianism.
I think the Lord Advocate will readily agree that solicitors render very useful service in this way to the State and to their clients, and, although their services with regard to marriages by declaration may not be so cheap as the new method introduced by this Bill, their services have this advantage, that they are available at any time and in any place. In particular, they are available at a death-bed. It is within common knowledge that a solicitor very often appears at a death-bed for the purpose of making a will. A man may be on a death-bed because, say, of a street accident, and it may bean exceedingly valuable thing for a woman to have the status of being the widow of the man whom she loved. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, the registrar cannot give that service, but a lawyer certainly could.
I do not know that everybody who desires to be married by declaration, and has been married by declaration, desires or desired to do so on a cheap basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge (Mr. Barr) has given certain in-


stances of large fees paid at Gretna. It is rather interesting to note that, shortly after the publication of the terms of the Bill—I believe actually the next day after —a peer in Scotland was married by declaration, and I should be surprised if he was very anxious to jump at the chance of having that service rendered for 5s. rather than for £5 or some other adequate sum. Accordingly, I suggest very strongly to the Lord Advocate that a solicitor should have the right and the duty that is accorded to the registrar by Subsection (2) of Clause 1, of causing the particulars of every marriage carried through by him to be entered in the register. That would ensure registration, but, of course, it is trite law that people in Scotland may be legally married though their names do not appear in the register of marriages. I suggest, further, as a counterpart to the giving of that right and duty to the solicitor, that this further duty should be placed on the registrar, namely, that he should be required to send an extract of the entry of the marriage to each of the contracting parties. That would get over any possible question of error in the register itself, and, of course, if that were done, both the new Socialist system that this Government have so eagerly snatched at and the private enterprise system operated by the solicitors would work side by side; but they would dovetail into one another and render a service that would be exceedingly valuable in that it would permit of a marriage being constituted in any place and at any time of the day—as at present.
I would emphasise the fact that the solicitors are a disciplined body. Apparently it is suggested against them in the report that they advertise. I have reason to know that that matter came before the Discipline Committee, but the objection "fell to the ground at once when it was pointed out that the most eminent solicitors advertise that they have houses to sell and to let, and they advertise as solicitors; they advertise, as solicitors, that they have executries to wind up, and that they have money to lend, and they advertise that money to lend in their capacity as solicitors. They go further, and advertise as solicitors that they have clients who are desirous of borrowing money on good security. Accordingly, any question of advertising seems to me to fall to the ground altogether. People in humble

circumstances do not have a great deal of business for solicitors to transact. They are not in a position to buy houses, and they are not in a position to lend large sums of money, on whatever security, to clients of solicitors.
It may be suggested—it has not been suggested so far—that a solicitor may be deceived by witnesses who say that the residential qualification has been fulfilled whereas in fact it has not; but, if a solicitor is deceived by witnesses, what certainty is there that a registrar will not be equally deceived by witnesses? The registrar is just as fallible as anyone else in that respect. It does not appear that the witnesses appearing at the registrar's office must be put on oath, but nevertheless those witnesses have to give information. At present, before the sheriff, it is the witnesses who are put on oath, and not the contracting parties, and, if those witnesses who are put on oath before the sheriff swear falsely, they commit perjury.
With regard to the residential qualification, the Secretary of State, in moving the Second Reading, pointed out that this residential qualification under Lord Brougham's Act was for the benefit of the run-away people from England. The real ground for it was the protection, or alleged protection, of English heiresses—or, more probably, the protection of English heirs, against the attacks of adventuresses. I am not aware that any Scotsman, or Scotswoman, ever got any benefit at all under Lord Brougham's Act. So far as the law of marriage is concerned, England has drawn from the law of Scotland very great benefits by adopting its provisions —to take only one case, the legitimation of children by the subsequent marriage of the parents. This matter of subornation of perjury, I consider very serious. If persons come to Scotland and they are not going to take the trouble to stay in Scotland for the requisite time, what happens? Witnesses are got—and got by very obvious means—to swear what is untrue, and that is a very unfortunate thing indeed for Scotland.
Marriage by promise subsequente copula is struck at in Clause 5, whereas marriage by cohabitation, habit and repute is not struck at. That seems to satisfy my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), but he apparently has forgotten that before a marriage can be constituted by cohabita-


tion, habit and repute the parties should live together for a long time, and live together as husband and wife for that time, and that they should be generally reputed by people round about, and especially by their own relatives, to be husband and wife. My right hon. Friend seemed to think that that was a sufficient type of irregular marriage to fill up all the gap between the limited new type of marriage in the approved registrar's office and a marriage by a religious ceremony.

Mr. Johnston: I distinctly recollect saying something else. I recollect making the suggestion to the Government that they should consider whether a declaration by consent before witnesses should not be made a regular marriage subsequently by permitting one of the parties to register.

Mr. Gibson: I agree. But I do not see exactly how that is going to be carried out. Perhaps in Committee we may be able to get something definite. I think that what I have suggested is perfectly definite. It may be that the right to register could be more liberally distributed, but if that were the case there might again be loopholes leading to serious abuse.
I wish now to say something about the form of marriage by promise subsequente copula, because this is dismissed in a very summary fashion in the report. The suggestion seems to be that there are very few cases. I know differently, from my own practice. This type of marriage means that where there has been a promise, and intercourse follows on that promise, according to the law of Scotland, provided the promise is proved in writing, the people are married. Let us follow it up. I have a profound respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). It was brought very much to my notice when this Bill first appeared in draft. The report had recommended that all forms of irregular marriage in Scotland should be abolished, but cohabitation, habit and repute has been saved. Before the Bill was printed I had had a very careful discussion with my hon. Friend about marriage by cohabitation, habit and repute, and he was so impressed that he said he would go to a certain quarter and make certain representations. I have a very great respect for his skill as a diplomat, and

his success as a negotiator. Perhaps it is a case of post hoc propter hoc; at any rate, this Bill does not attack marriage by cohabitation, habit and repute.
As regards marriage by promise subsequente copula, I have found that that has been a powerful safeguard for the chaste young woman of a humble home in Scotland whose chastity has been attacked by a man under promise of marriage. The young woman is wooed in secret. She does not surrender without a promise —and, there being secrecy, she does not surrender without a promise in writing. Consider what happens if the man seeks to throw her over. I will consider the matter from two points of view: (1) where the man is wealthy, or the son of a wealthy father; and (2) where she is of the same degree as the man. In the circumstances I have described she has the right to the status of being the wife of the man. If he tries to throw her over, and she is properly advised—and I have frequently advised in such circumstances—she raises an action for declarator of marriage, or alternatively for damages for breach of promise of marriage; and the summons is served at the home of the man. That is an entirely different thing from bringing an illegitimate child and leaving it on the doorstep of the man's father. This is a matter of bringing to the doorstep the daughter-in-law of the man's father.
There are not two counsel in Great Britain who have settled more cases with one another than the Lord Advocate and I have done, but we have never settled an action like this. The reason is that actions of this sort are settled before they get to counsel for the defender at all. And they are settled on a very definite basis—that the woman has the right to have herself declared the wife of that man straight away; and she will surrender that right, if properly advised, only on very strict terms. Time and again a young woman has been brought to me by friends in a position of that sort. I have found out at once whether she had a solicitor, and if not I have at once put her into touch with a solicitor, so that she was safeguarded by an action taken forthwith. On one occasion, the woman did not see a solicitor at once, but the next morning she turned up at the office of the solicitor whose name I had given her, with a bundle of pound notes in her hand, and said, "I do not require your services; I have settled this case." But it was


settled on an entirely different basis than it would have been if her true rights had been kept in view. That is very important.
I will interpolate a word with regard to the objection about the difficulty of proof. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, incidental matters in connection with the determining of the question of liability may be proved before the county court judge, or, in Scotland, the sheriff substitute. It has been held quite recently, in a case decided on 19th March, 1935—I was counsel in the case— that a marriage by declaration de presenti could competently be proved before the Sheriff-substitute. That did not set up the marriage except before the Sheriff, but at the material time it was sufficient for proof of the question of whether the man who had been killed had been married to the mother of certain children, to be led before the Sheriff-substitute and determined there in connection with her and their claim for workmen's compensation. Accordingly, what appears on pages 11 and 12 of the report is rather a gloss on the law of Scotland, as judging the matter from my own experience in this branch of the law, it is misleading. The expense would simply be an incident in the expense of workmen's compensation proceedings there, and proof would be a relatively easy matter.
Take the case of a woman, and a young man of her own degree. The great purpose of marriage is the procreation of children, and, with regard to a promise of marriage subsequente copula, the law of Scotland has in view the status of legitimacy of the children. These children are entitled to the status of legitimate children. The importance of the case of Mackie in 1917, which is mentioned in the report, was that that status could be acquired by the child even though one of the parents was dead. The abolition of marriage subsequente copula will mean, undoubtedly, a very definite increase in the number of illegitimate children in Scotland, and that, in my humble submission to the House, is a very serious matter indeed. Just consider the case of a young woman vis-a-vis a young man of her own degree. There is, in these circumstances, about the strongest possible incentive for marriage; and, the law standing as it does at present, what happens? That position is recognised, and immediately a ceremony of marriage

is gone through. But suppose Clause 5 is passed; the man knows quite well that he can snap his fingers at the girl, go away, and leave her altogether. At present she can raise an action and have her position regularised, but this Bill proposes to take that right away. The woman in these circumstances would be left stranded.
It cannot be too emphatically affirmed that there is still the double moral standard. A man may marry again after having left a young woman stranded, and it does not matter much to him. People say, "He has sown his wild oats, and he has turned over a new leaf." But with regard to the woman it is a different thing entirely. Her character has gone. It requires a most courageous man to marry her, and, even when he does, the world says, "We will not call !" From sheer knowledge of practice and of things as they are I say with very great regret but most emphatically that Clause 5, in its present form, makes this Bill nothing short of a bastardising Bill. For that reason I would respectfully invite my colleagues and the House to see that a very grave wrong is not perpetrated on the people, and in particular on the children of Scotland, by passing Clause 5 in its present form.
Right throughout our history in Scotland the law of Scotland has dealt with marriage, and with the rights of women in particular, in a much more kindly fashion than has the law of England. This Bill seems to be an attempt to bring our Scottish law down to the lower level of the law of England, whereas we have in quite recent years enriched the law of England by England incorporating certain very valuable principles taken from our law of marriage. Certain recommendations were made in the report with regard to the matter of notification that do not appear in the Bill. Notification, as it is at present, is far from being effective. In a city either banns in a church or a notice on the notice board at a registrar's office is a very ineffective way of publishing the intention of parties to-marry. I do not know that even the recommendations that appear in the report would make matters very much better. It is unfortunate that so large a proportion of our population seldom go near a church, and when they do, it is not necessarily by any means the Established Church of Scotland.
I do not think that notification of marriage can be made really effective unless we enrol the assistance of the Press of the country. The Press of the country might be put under an obligation to publish once a week a list of names obtained from the registrar of persons intending to marry. That information would reach practically all the homes of the country and prove to be a very effective way of notifying intention to marry. But, as has been indicated during the Debate already, very often for private reasons people do not desire their marriage to be known. A woman might desire to remain in employment after she has been married, and in many cases that would be impossible if her marriage were known. There are very obvious cases of school teachers and of bank clerks and so on. I do not want to dwell on that matter because these things are outside the present Bill.
While the initial purpose of the Bill is undoubtedly sound, and we want to get rid of abuses, nevertheless, we ought, when changing the law, to preserve for the citizens of Scotland the rights that they have had from time immemorial; and in particular we do not want to do anything to our Scottish law of marriage that would increase at all the number of children in Scotland to whom the stigma of illegitimacy would be attached.

6.7 p.m.

Sir D. Thomson: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) said that he was going to reply to a question which I had asked the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells), but he did not do so. What I asked the hon. Gentleman—and I should be glad if the Lord Advocate would let us know—was not what was the difference in procedure between England and Scotland, but whether any practical difficulty arises through marriages not being able to take place at any hour of the day or night in the office of the registrar. The question was whether in practice the point which the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire made was a practical one or not. I congratulate the Government upon bringing in this Bill. The Scottish marriage laws have not been an example to England in recent years, as far as Gretna Green marriages are concerned. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Greenock will agree

with that. I disagree completely with the hon. and learned Member with regard to Clause 5. A marriage of habit and repute is entirely different from a marriage by promise subsequente copula, about which he was speaking. His description of the girl who, having been told of this method of marriage, was seen the next morning with a handful of pound notes at the solicitor's door was a little unfortunate. The purpose of the Bill is to create a popular and satisfactory form of marriage and not to allow anybody to appear with pound notes as damages. We want to get the marriage laws of Scotland in as sound and good a position as we can, and I think that particular instance was a bad one.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) on the very small point about civil and religious marriages. I would hardly dare challenge him on religious subjects, but I would be sorry to see the present system thrown aside and that it should be considered necessary for everybody to have a civil marriage, and, if need be, to have a religious marriage on top of it. He seemed to take the line that if they did not come to church, in any event, they should not come there to be married only. One could also take the opposite line that it would be a very good thing if they at least came to be married, and I would not at all support his views on that matter. I do not wish to delay the House any longer but to offer my congratulations to the Government and to express the hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage into law.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: There is one good thing about the Bill, and that is that, in having the Lord Advocate to advise on the very difficult legal problems, we shall be sure of sound and capable advice. I am completely at a loss to understand many of the phrases used in this Bill, and, apart from his politics being completely wrong and usually entirely misguided, we are fortunate, from the point of view of being legally advised on this Bill, in having the assistance of the Lord Advocate. When the Bill was first talked about I thought there was a great deal of nonsense spoken about this problem. I do not defend Gretna, or anything about Gretna. The thing is silly. But this Bill does not abolish Gretna; it abolishes the marriage


by consent, whether it be at Gretna or any other place. We not merely abolish marriage by consent at Gretna, but we abolish it throughout Scotland as a whole. I believe that if the newspapers had not given Gretna so much publicity and boosted it so much, possibly Gretna would never have existed at all. Certain people seemed to want some kind of romantic marriage, and Gretna seemed to provide it.
I wish to say a few words about other matters which ought to be given some consideration. There is the point that was raised by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) and subsequently by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) of the availability of the registrar in the case of sudden emergency. That suggestion ought to be supported, and it should be looked at sympathetically by the Government. There is another matter I would ask the Lord Advocate to consider. Do I understand that the First Schedule to the Bill would be exactly what would be published in the window of the registrar's office?

The Lord Advocates: No, the Schedule is not the notice which goes up in the registrar's window. The schedule of marriage has to be completed by the parties when they get married at the registrar's office. It is a private document.

Mr. Buchanan: What will be the nature of the notice that is issued? A difficulty also arises as to the details required in the schedule of marriage. A man may be illegitimate. He is not to blame for that. Nine times out of 10 he may not know who his father is, and it is impossible for him to state the "Name, surname and rank or profession of father" for inclusion in the schedule of marriage. Perhaps he has not told the woman that he is illegitimate. What is the sense of it? Why should that fact be published to the world when it is something for which the man is not responsible? Like a wise man he tries to put it aside as a thing that should be dead and buried. Why should he have to produce all that information? Cannot the Lord Advocate consider some way of getting over that necessity? One of the reasons why I have sometimes found people going in for a religious ceremony as against an irregular ceremony, is that in the religious ceremony there is less of

this sort of thing than there is in the irregular marriage ceremony. I was married in the United Free Church and I paid a little extra to get all the "cries" shouted on one Sunday, so that nobody would come listening for two or three Sundays. I confess that I do not like the idea of putting all these things in this document. They are not essential. The essential information is the residence of the man and the residence of the woman, and their age qualifications. I hope that the Lord Advocate will consider amending this particular Schedule.
I did not hear the whole of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson), but on Clause 5 I take the view which I understand he takes. I have a great deal of doubt as to the wisdom of this Clause. In working-class circles you very often find that marriage arises because there is going to be a child. Let us be frank about it. They are not bad people, and very frequently the man decides to marry the woman because he wants to see the child with a proper parentage. I have very often found that these marriages are just as happy as most other marriages. But seduction has taken place and a child is born. The courts now have the power, if the woman takes the case to court, to say that a promise has been made and can declare that a marriage has in fact taken place. I understand that that is abolished by this Clause, and that the power of the courts to declare a marriage has gone. I question the wisdom of that. I would not like to see the woman and particularly her child treated in that unfair fashion, and I hope the Lord Advocate will look at the point again.
I am pleased indeed that the Government have decided to retain "habit and repute" as against the Committee's recommendation. I have had similar cases to those quoted by the right hon. Member, for West Stirling and the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire dealing with "habit and repute." I had the case of a man who had lived for 51 years with his wife. She claimed a pension. We had great difficulty in establishing the claim because all the children had been registered as illegitimate, but I am glad to say that the sheriff procurator held that marriage had in fact taken place by "habit and repute," and allowed an old age pension to the woman and to the man. I am glad that "habit and repute" is


retained. If a man without any legal ceremony lives with a woman and carries out all his social duties without the power of the law which compels the rest of us to do so, then I say that that man is just as good a husband and father as any other member of the community.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the plea of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire for fair treatment for practising solicitors. We are all inclined to kick the ordinary practising solicitor, but in large towns like Glasgow many of the poor people are indebted to practising solicitors for seeing that many of their rights are maintained, and I shall never join, in what is so easy an occupation, in attacking the legal profession. On the other hand, I have never seen any great enthusiasm on the part of lawyers for this class of work, and I do not think any of them will be very grieved at losing this particular job. I do not think they will miss it very much. While sympathising with my hon. Friend in many respects, on balance I prefer the cheap and simple marriage which is now proposed to the form of marriage which has now to do with the legal profession.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) referred to religious marriages and their extension. I agree with him that if you are going to extend them you must extend them to every one. You cannot stop at a Baptist and leave out the Salvation Army; you cannot stop at a Methodist and leave out the Baptist; you must include them all. I represent at least between 20 and 30 different religions, which include all sorts of devoted and earnest people. If you are going to limit it you will have to choose one of two alternatives. You must say that the Church of Scotland is a State church and is therefore entitled to this prerogative or you must say that there is to be no church at all unless the persons themselves desire it, and then have a special declaration. If you extend it to all religions you must be prepared to include all religions, some of which to-day are not very easy to find. I take the view that on balance it is not wise to extend it on religious grounds.
My last word is this: We are here discussing marriage and its complications. I wish the Government would try to look at it from other aspects. Many of the evils arising under the marriage laws in

Scotland do not arise from the facilities which the Church and the State give. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Sir D. Thompson) said that people went to church only once a year. Some of them do not go at all, but some of the problems which arise in Scotland are due to some extent, perhaps not altogether, to the social conditions under which these people have to live. When you have people herded together, men and women living in close proximity to each other, with no privacy in life at all, with eight and nine and 10 families living in a seven and eight apartment house, you have all the opportunities for vice and seduction and marriages which are not a credit to any of the parties concerned.
I am not going to oppose the Bill and I shall come to the Committee with an open mind ready to hear what can be said. I am glad that "habit and repute" is going to be retained. I am more interested in that than in anything else. But our marriages will never be properly clean and pure until the Government tackle not merely the machinery of marriage but its soul and its spirit, by seeing that the social conditions give our people a chance of contracting a marriage bond which will be lasting and decent.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: The considerations which have been advanced by speakers in the latter part of the Debate have caused me to wonder whether we may not in this Bill be using as ledge-hammer to crack a nut. The nut is the Gretna Green form of marriage, where, before a so-called priest, who never was entitled to the name of priest, who is also described as a blacksmith, and who never was a blacksmith in his life; in what is described as a smithy but which never was used as a smithy, marriages are contracted which in many cases are not marriages at all. There is a complete sham about the Gretna Green ceremony which should be exposed. It is within living memory that the so-called smithy at Gretna was previously a cottage inhabited by ordinary tenants, and never was used as an actual smithy. The idea that there was some romantic connection with the old runaway marriages of loving couples from the English side of the Border to unite themselves at Gretna Green, is a completely spurious idea, and I am glad that we are in process of sweeping it away. But in


doing that it is obvious, from the powerful considerations advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson),that there are many other things being done by the Bill which may not be so happy in their consequences, and I am sure that in Committee some of his considerations will require to be looked at very carefully indeed. In Scotland we are very generous and kindly in our consideration of human frailties. We have not been inclined to call "poor Frailty names," we have not "tied ourselves up in godly laces "; we have had that consideration for human frailties which is the stamp of real sympathetic consideration and indeed the stamp of real civilisation.
I do not, however, rise to make observations in a general way on the Bill, but to raise one particular point, and it is rather surprising that after all the time we have debated this Bill, the opportunities which we have had of looking at not only the Bill itself but also the report of the Departmental Committee which was appointed to inquire into the law relating to marriage in Scotland, there should still remain one point which has not been referred to. That is the recommendation of the committee that there should be a limitation, a restriction, upon the marriage of a minor with a foreigner as set forth in paragraph 2 of the report, and that the minor should not be permitted to marry a foreigner without the consent of the parents or guardians. It is true that in Scotland, as far as minors are concerned, we have not, in a general way, kept them in swaddling clothes until they were 21 years of age. We have looked upon them as being grown up and able to decide their own destiny in life to a much greater extent that has been done on the English side of the Border. In making a plea that this point should be considered, I know that I am asking for a limitation upon the freedom that has been accorded to minors in Scotland up to the present, but I have had experience, more particularly when I was representing West Edinburgh—now represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate—which has brought to my knowledge the bad circumstances and evil consequences that have arisen through the marriage or association of young women in Edinburgh with men of foreign nationality.
I have recollections of many pitiful letters from the parents of girls who had gone through an irregular form of marriage or entered into a union with foreigners and then found that they had put themselves in a very difficult position. This question raises the whole matter of the possible loss of nationality. It is not always that a British woman who marries a foreigner loses her nationality, but sometimes it happens, and sometimes the woman finds that she has no nationality, and because of that union is a citizen of no country. There are powerful considerations advanced by those who are interested in this matter with regard to the recommendation of the committee, to which effect has not been given. I hope that even in the Second Reading Debate we may have some indication from the Lord Advocate as to why this recommendation has not been put into effect, and some assurance that on the Committee stage, if there is an opportunity to put this right, it will not be looked upon with hostility by the Law Officers of the Crown. I promise that there will be that opportunity, because it is the intention of certain hon. Members to put down Amendments that would enable this matter to be dealt with. However, before we reach that stage, it would be useful if the general considerations relating to the matter were stated from the Government Front Bench.

6.34 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: With the exception of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson), I think I can claim that every contribution, to the Debate has taken the form of approval, either enthusiastic or guarded and discriminate, of the principle of this Bill. Therefore, I propose to devote the greater part of my remarks to answering, as far as it is possible to do so in a Second Reading Debate, the numerous questions that have been put to me and dealing with the numerous suggestions that have been made from various quarters.
Before doing that, may I, in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), assure him that this Bill for the reform of the marriage law of Scotland does not find its cause, but merely its occasion, in the Gretna scandal? It is over 150 years since a Bill was first introduced into this House for the purpose that is intended to be achieved by


the Bill to which I now ask the House to give a Second Reading. Time and again Commissions and Royal Commissions have investigated the matter. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) referred to one Commission. There was another Commission in 1868. As far as I know, the result of all those examinations of the problem has been the same, namely, to advocate the modernisation—one might almost say the civilisation—of the Scottish law of marriage; but for one reason or another, and possibly because of that inertia which characterises the attitude of the legal profession to changes in legal principles—of which we had an example from the hon. and learned Member for Greenock this evening—nothing has been done; and I am bound to say that I regard it not as a taunt, but as a compliment, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should regard me as being Socialistic for having been associated with what I regard as a long overdue measure of reform.
I am not going to speak of the social side of the question with which my right hon. Friend dealt, but of the legal side. There is as much spurious glamour associated with the Scottish law of marriage as there is with the Gretna smithy, because the bulk of the marriage law, as far as it exists in Scotland to-day, is derived from the old Canon Law of the Middle Ages as that law was before the Council of Trent in 1563. The authentic exponents of the old Canon Law, the Roman Catholic Church, have long since discarded these doctrines. There is not a State in Europe—and indeed, there are very few civilised States in the whole world—which did not discard these doctrines long ago; but in Scotland, and in one or two of the States of the United States of America, these doctrines still survive as obsolete and useless relics of mediaeval principles which no longer meet the requirements of a modern State.
I would go further and remind the House—and the hon. and learned Member for Greenock will, no doubt, confirm me in this respect—that there is the very highest authority, that of Lord Fraser, our principal writer on the law of husband and wife in Scotland, for the view that the Scottish doctrine of marriage by consent, which is the basic doctrine of the law, depends upon a mistaken view

of the Canon Law promulgated by an English judge in an English case, and subsequently confirmed by the House of Lords, and introduced into Scotland by mistake. If that be so, the ancestry of the whole doctrine certainly is in no sense a credit to the law of Scotland. Indeed, the last word on this subject was uttered more than a century ago by a famous Scottish judge, Lord Hailes, who, speaking of the law as it was in his day, said:
What was the law of Scotland while Europe was barbarous is still the law of Scotland when Europe has become civilised.

Mr. Cassells: Is it civilised now?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member may be right. Perhaps I should say I am speaking of Europe as it was a few years ago. Is it to be wondered that all those who have the interests of the Scottish people at heart, not only from the standpoint of the new social services and similar matters referred to by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and from the standpoint of the credit of Scottish law, should welcome the opportunity which this Bill affords of civilising the principles of our law in regard to what my right hon. Friend has rightly described as the most important transaction known to the law? After all, the first and vital requirement of any law of marriage is that it should be simple and certain. The present law of Scotland on the subject of marriage is neither the one nor the other. In the preparation of this Bill, full regard has been paid to the progress that has been made in other countries—in England, France, and the other States of Europe, and in America and elsewhere—and with that experience before us, we have tried to bring the Scottish law in this respect up to date. I mention that because of certain criticisms that were addressed to the new form of civil marriage, to the requirement of notice and other features in the Clauses of the Bill.
I would mention in passing one other consideration as a justification for the departure proposed by the Bill. The great bulk of the irregular marriages to use an expression which the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) rightly criticised, are, in fact, "marriages before the sheriff." I have been at pains to make inquiries to ascertain to what extent that process is absorbing the time of the sheriffs and the sheriff court officials. I


find that during the Fair Holiday last summer in Glasgow sheriff court alone 183 marriages were carried through, and during the hogmanay period, last year, 126. The total number of marriages in the Glasgow sheriff court for 1938 was 2,753. Speaking from my own special standpoint, I feel that an intolerable waste of the time and energies of the judicial officers and the officers of the court is involved in the performance of so large a number of marriages in a year. The function is fundamentally one for the registrar and not one for the sheriff, because, as any hon. Member knows who has seen a marriage before the sheriff, it is a pure formality, and the sheriff is merely seeing that the proceedings are conducted in an orderly way and the marriage registered. Therefore, from my point of view, I should welcome the speeding up which would arise from releasing the sheriffs of Scotland from this quite inappropriate function which is thrust upon them as a result of the obsolete marriage law.

Mr. Cassells: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman received any application from the Association of Sheriff-Substitutes on this point?

The Lord Advocate: I cannot answer the hon. Member. I should not expect to receive applications from the sheriff-substitutes in relation to a subject of this kind, but I will make inquiries and give the hon. Member an answer at a later date. Coming now to the specific points that have been raised, I will preface my remarks by making it plain that anything I say to-night is not to be accepted as indicating that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I have closed minds on any of the interesting topics that have been raised. I have been invited, and I intend to accept the invitation as far as I can, to indicate our general view on the various contentious topics, but I do not want any hon. Member to suppose that in so doing I am necessarily tying my hands against compromises or suggestions whether they come from hon. Members or from other quarters.
First of all, a good deal was said with regard to the type of case in which, for reasons of extreme urgency, illness or the like, the normal procedure of notice and of marriage in a registrar's office cannot be undertaken. I would like to hear more

on this point, and no doubt I shall when the Bill goes upstairs, but I would make two observations upon that subject. In the first place, Clause 2, which provides for a joint application to the sheriff and for what I may call a special emergency licence, has been drawn on lines designed, as I thought—wrongly perhaps—to cover the great majority of cases that might reasonably be expected to arise in actual practice. If it can be improved in drafting, I have no doubt that suggestions to that effect will be made later, but hon. Members must not imagine that Clause 2 involves a sick man or sick woman appearing personally before the sheriff. All it contemplates is that a joint application is to be made to the sheriff. Some hon. Members said that it might not be possible to get a sheriff or a sheriff-substitute or an honorary sheriff in a case of emergency, but in my official capacity I often have to secure at short notice and for very urgent purposes access to sheriffs or persons who are in a position to exercise the functions of a sheriff, and I am bound to say, looking back over my experience of the last four years, I cannot recall a case in which even in circumstances of compelling urgency, I have not been able to get what I wanted.

Mr. Buchanan: But you are the Lord Advocate.

The Lord Advocate: The suggestion I understood was that sheriffs or sheriffs-substitute or honorary sheriffs were not readily available, but, as a matter of fact, a great deal of trouble has been taken to ensure that they reside where they are readily available.

Mr. Buchanan: When the ordinary layman wants to get the sheriff it is necessary to get in touch with the procurator-fiscal and in Glasgow up to the time of the present procurator-fiscal, nobody could do so because he was not even on the telephone. I once desired to bail out some of my constituents, and I had to go miles in a motor car in order to get the formalities completed.

The Lord Advocate: I am sorry that the hon. Member was put to that inconvenience, but of course we are not concerned here with the procurators-fiscal.

Mr. Buchanan: But that is the method of getting in touch with the sheriff—through the procurator-fiscal.

The Lord Advocate: Let me put another point. Is this the sort of thing that is likely to happen with sufficient frequency to render necessary further provisions than have been made up to the present. Speaking like the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) from a detached standpoint, I am sorry that some hon. Members should apparently regard matrimony as a thing which a man contemplates only when he has the imminent prospect of death before his eyes, but in regard to the cases of emergency which have been mentioned, I would say this. As far as I am aware, in very few other countries are the provisions for dealing with cases of this kind any greater than, or indeed as great as, those which we propose in this Bill. For example, I understand that in England it is not possible even in the case of danger of death to get married at any hour of the day or night. Hon. Members will bear in mind that in considering these matters we must keep in view the general provisions made over the whole field of jurisprudence.

Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now that it was not possible at present to get married at any hour of the day or night.

The Lord Advocate: In England.

Mr. Kirkwood: But I am talking about Scotland and we are dealing with Scotland, and it is possible now to get married at any hour of the day or night. A solicitor can do it. I know of a case in which a man was in danger of death as the result of an accident and wanted to have his child legitimised, and he was married by a solicitor shortly before his death.

The Lord Advocate: I think the hon. Member must have misheard me. I was referring definitely to England. In Scotland as the law is at present, of course you can get married at any hour of the day or night, but what a number of hon. Members have omitted to observe is that the services of a solicitor are not necessary at all. That would justify me in making a few comments upon the plea of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) on behalf of his own branch of the legal profession, but I do not propose to go into that point. What I am concerned to say in regard to Clause 2 is that my right hon. Friend and I are willing to examine it further, and also to

examine sympathetically any Amendments to it which are proposed. It has been drawn on lines which will afford under the new system facilities, at least as great as those which are normally afforded in all modern states and I think, subject to further suggestions which may be put forward, it provides a safeguard for emergency cases sufficiently general to cover the great majority of those cases which are likely to arise.

Mr. R. Gibson: Would the Lord Advocate go as far as this? Would he consider Amendments to Clause 2 designed to ensure to the people of Scotland facilities equal to those granted by the present law of Scotland and make the law under the Bill as civilised as it is at present?

The Lord Advocate: On the contrary. I would regard that as equivalent to leaving the law of Scotland in the medieval darkness in which it at present stands. I am not committing myself or my right hon. Friend as to our attitude on specific Amendments, but on the broad point, which the hon. and learned Gentleman puts to me, I am afraid that my present attitude is one of resolute opposition. I do not linger longer on that point, because there are several others to which I wish to direct attention.
I next take the subject of the banns of marriage and the suggestion that the privilege, falsely so-called, enjoyed by the Church of Scotland in this respect should be extended to certain other denominations. On that point may I remind the House of the purpose of prior intimation of marriage, whether by banns or in any other way. Its justification, or perhaps I should say its alleged justification, is twofold. In the first place, it provides for publication and thereby gives, at least theoretically, an opportunity to persons to intervene to prevent a marriage which is objected to on some sufficient ground. Secondly, it secures an opportunity for due deliberation on the part of the contracting parties. Those are the two justifications alleged in all works on the subject for prior notice, and prior notice is common practice in most countries of Christendom.
According to the present law and practice of Scotland, the sole purpose of banns is to satisfy the requirement that there shall be publication in the parish church of the parish, not because it is the Church of Scotland's church, but because it is


the recognised public place in every parish where publication is made of public communications. Hon. Members who are familiar, as most of them are, with parish churches in rural areas are no doubt familiar with the oddly assorted array of public notices to be found in and around a church porch, including notices about diseases of potatoes and of animals and about Schedule A Income Tax. I have no right to speak for the Church of Scotland, and this House cannot legislate for the Church of Scotland even it desired to do so, and the present procedure relating to banns is governed by an Act of Assembly of 1932. But I, personally, share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Coatbridge when he suggested that the reform which would be most in harmony with modern ideas would be not the extension but the contraction of the practice of proclaiming banns. The ground for that view is that the publication of the banns in church does not achieve sufficiently the sole object which publication is intended to achieve, namely, wide publicity among those who are interested in the matter. Everybody knows that banns are frequently proclaimed in a church to which the persons concerned do not go and of whose body they may not be members at all, with the result that the proclamation, in many cases, is little more than an unfortunate intrusion in Divine service. That however is a topic which, fortunately or unfortunately, we cannot pursue on this occasion. I mention it only for this reason, that the arguments adduced by certain hon. Members on this topic have the effect of magnifying and intensifying the uselessness of this form of publication rather than the opposite effect.
In addition to that, I would ask where is this matter to end? The hon. Member for Gorbals said there were 20 or 30 different religious denominations in his constituency. I can go further than that. The Registrar-General for Scotland informs me that his Department have recognised as ministers of religion for the purpose of celebrating regular marriages, the ministers of no fewer than 80 distinct sects or denominations. The moment you contemplate the extension of this right to anything like that number of separate sects and denominations you have to face the practical difficulty which arises from this fact. No church, or sect, or denomination in Scotland except the Church of

Scotland is organised on a territorial basis. The Church of Scotland has a church assigned to each registration district. No other religious body has, and I am bound to say that all attempts to frame provisions that would work in relation to all these various denominations, have broken down because of the difficulty of determining in what church and in what circumstances the publication is to be made. I do not want to preclude argument or to suggest that the answer which I have given is final. I do not wish to suggest that my mind is closed to further consideration of the matter, but, for the reasons which I have indicated, I think the Government were well advised in rejecting that proposal.
There appears to be general agreement that whatever else the Bill does, it ought not to abolish the system of marriage ''by habit and repute." The House may be interested to know that the Royal Commission of 1868 took exactly the same view. They reported that this principle was not peculiar to the law of Scotland but was common to every system of enlightened jurisprudence. It is a principle which is found in the law of England, although that is not very generally known. As there has been little if any criticism of this aspect of the Bill and of the proposal to break away from the recommendations of the Morrison Committee in this respect, I propose to say no more about that subject.
As regards the question of the Quakers and the provisions of Clause 3, the hon. Member for Coatbridge surprised me by the fact that he was more Royalist than the King, because, while I am only too glad to go further into this matter, I am in a position to tell him that Clause 3 was submitted to and approved by representatives of the Society of Friends as meeting their wishes. I admit that the effect of the Clause is not to go quite as far as is the case in England, but, according to my information and recollection of a meeting which I attended, the Society of Friends are content that their right to celebrate marriages should be confined to the case where either of the parties to the marriage is a member or an attender associated with the Society of Friends that they have no desire to secure the right to celebrate marriages between parties neither of whom is a member of their particular faith.

Mr. Buchanan: What about Clause 5?

The Lord Advocate: I intended to cover that by my opening remarks in which I advocated the sweeping away of this old medieval Church Law, which has long since been discarded by every other State in Christendom, except a few States in the American Union. It would make confusion worse confounded if an attempt were made to retain the old system side by side with the new.
As regards the final point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about the marriage of minors, his suggestion, I gather, was that the marriage of minors should only be rendered subject to the consent of their parents in cases where the marriage was with a foreigner, and probably only where the marriage would not be recognised by the law of that foreigner's domicile. As far as that is concerned, there is one entirely new factor in the situation which has emerged since the committee reported, and indeed, within the last few weeks, and that is that the wider problem, of which this is merely one example, has just been referred by the Lord Chancellor to an expert committee, with a Scottish representative, under a remit which will enable careful investigation to be given to the wider aspects of the problem. The remit, of which I have obtained a copy, asks the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir William Graham Harrison to investigate the law relating to the celebration of marriages in the United Kingdom—it is an English as well as a Scottish problem—where the marriage is not recognised as valid in the country of the nationality or domicile of each or either of the parties, with special reference to the Marriage with Foreigners Act, 1906, and the position under the law of the United Kingdom with regard to the recognition of marriages in cases where the personal law of the parties, or either of them, is inconsistent with the principles of English marriage law.
When that committee reports, in all human probability United Kingdom legislation of a comprehensive character will be required and, without developing the further arguments which seemed to me to render it unfortunate that we should attempt to introduce this new idea into the Scottish law now, I am content to leave the matter for the moment in this way,

that the committee is now actively investigating this problem and may be expected to report within a measurable period of time, and that it would be a mistake to trench upon this very delicate problem until full investigation has been completed. I will only hint, if I may, that there lurks a very real, almost a political difficulty in this question, because a great deal, though not all, of the practical difficulty which arises in connection with these polygamous or non-Christian marriages is associated with India and parts of the British Dominions. No one would wish light heartedly to embark upon interference with a question of that character. My advice to the House would be, subject to any further examination that may be necessary upstairs, to leave the matter alone until the committee has reported.

Mr. Stephen: Are there Scottish lawyers on the Committee?

The Lord Advocate: Yes, I said so just before the hon. Member came in. There is a Scottish representative on the Committee. I think those Members who have raised points with which I have not specifically dealt will appreciate that it is hardly practicable in a Second Reading Debate to go into greater detail. My own feeling as a lawyer is that, looking over the 150 years and more during which this subject has been the matter of repeated suggestions for reform, I count myself fortunate that it has been my privilege to take part in framing and introducing legislation which will achieve a long over-due improvement in an important chapter of Scots law.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Markham: In this discussion there has been one aspect of the report which has not been referred to, and that is the commercialisation through museum methods of irregular and semi-irregular marriages, which was condemned in no unmeasured terms by the report.

Mr. Buchanan: It has been referred to in every speech.

Mr. Markham: I am aware that the commercialisation of marriages has been referred to, but what has not been referred to is the commercialisation through a special angle, that of the museum.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member might be fair to many of us who have sat throughout the Debate. He said the subject had never been referred to, and it has been referred to by every speaker.

Mr. Markham: I say that, as far as I am aware, the position of the commercialisation from the museum angle has not been referred to.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member said that this commercialisation had never been referred to. I say that every speaker has referred to it, and I want the hon. Member in common fairness not to say these things which are not true.

Mr. Markham: There is a misunderstanding. I am aware that the commercialisation of these irregular or semi-irregular marriages has been referred to many times, but there is one aspect of them which has not been referred to, and which was brought out in the Morrison report. I refer to the commercialisation of these marriages through the museum angle. Scottish Members know that at Gretna, for example, there is a public museum going on there, well advertised, exhibiting forgeries, and obtaining money under what cannot be described as anything but false pretences. This practice was condemned by Lord Morrison in very outspoken words. By this Bill we abolish the irregular marriage, but we do not abolish the commercial swindle of the museums that have grown out of them. I should like to see these museums closed, and in this respect I can say fairly to the House that the point has not been dealt with. I hope the Minister will take steps to see that the public are no longer gulled in this manner.

Mr. Barr: I devoted almost a third of my speech to that.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to remove a position of difficulty which has arisen in the present Statutory provisions which govern the disqualification of councillors for membership of local authorities— county, burgh or district councils. Recently questions have arisen in an acute form on the right of councillors who are themselves occupying council houses to vote on housing matters, and also on the placing of contracts by local authorities with co-operative societies in which some members of the council have some interest. The present position as regards housing is regulated by Section 107 of the 1925 Act, which provides that a person shall not vote as a member of a local authority, or of any committee of a local authority, on a housing question if it relates to any house, building or land in which he is beneficially interested. Difficulties in the administration of housing business, especially in relation to the fixing of rents, have arisen in a number of burghs owing to the very high proportion of councillors who occupy council houses. I know of one case in which an entire local authority were all occupying council houses, and there are several other cases in which a large majority of them are in that position. The result is that the conduct of housing business in these areas has been seriously impeded, if not rendered impossible, in regard to such matters as the fixing of rent.
As to the position of councillors who belong to co-operative societies, the position under the present law is that a person shall be disqualified for being nominated or elected, or for being or continuing a councillor, if and while he has, directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any contract with, by or on behalf of the council. An exception exists in favour of those councillors who have a share or interest in any company incorporated by Act of Parliament or Royal Charter under the Companies Act. That exception does not cover the case of private companies or of members of co-operative societies, who are consequently disqualified altogether from membership of the council in the event of the council entering into a contract with a cooperative society of which they are members. Public attention has only recently been directed to the position of


such councillors, whose statutory disqualification had not previously been appreciated, and since in several areas contracts with co-operative societies are in existence, a very large number of councillors appear to be disqualified and liable to vacate their office.

Mr. Westwood: Is it quite correct to say that the attention of those responsible for administration or legislation has just been drawn to the present situation owing to what arose at Stirling and elsewhere? Is it not a fact that in 1924 a Bill was actually prepared because of then existing anomalies?

Mr. Wedderburn: I was not aware of that. Of course I accept what the hon. Member says, but it is only recently that any trouble or difficulty appears to have arisen in connection with this matter. Otherwise, I do not see why more public attention was not called to it before.

Mr. Westwood: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that that Bill is available in the Library of the House?

Mr. Wedderburn: I have no doubt that that may be so, but I do not think the existence of the Bill or its purpose can have been generally appreciated in Scotland, or surely more attention would have been called to the matter, and we should not now have been in the position of having to deal with it as a matter of urgency. The hon. Member may have been aware of the difficulty, but I confess that I was not, and I do not think many people serving upon local authorities in Scotland were aware of it. My information is that it is only recently that their attention has been called to it, and naturally considerable concern has been created by the discovery of a position which was not generally appreciated before. The continuance of this situation would not only be very disturbing to a large number of councillors who did not appear to have appreciated their position under the law, but it would, of course, seriously affect a number of local authority services.
As soon as these difficulties were brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, and when he was satisfied that they were acute, he thought it right as a matter of urgency, to consult the Departmental Committee which is at present reviewing the general local

government law in Scotland, the Public Health Consolidated Committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Jeffrey, which includes representatives of the local authorities in Scotland and of the three Parliamentary parties. The committee, in the course of their review, did have both these points under consideration, but my right hon. Friend invited them to give him their views on the desirability of amending the existing provisions dealing with disqualification, and upon the form which any amendments for this purpose should take, and the committee, after giving careful consideration to the position, have furnished us, in anticipation of their general report, with their views in the form of a memorandum which has been printed as a Stationery Office publication, so that it may be available to hon. Members.
It will be seen from this memorandum that the committee are unanimously agreed that certain amendments should be made in the existing law in order to meet those difficulties which I have mentioned. This Bill has been prepared on the lines recommended by this committee, and it gives effect to their considered views. The general effect of the Bill is to repeal the existing Scottish provisions under which a person interested in a contract with a local authority is disqualified from membership of that authority, and in place of this disqualification from being a member of the authority to provide that if a member of the authority has any pecuniary interest in any contract, or proposed contract, he shall disclose the fact and shall be precluded from taking part in any discussion or vote upon the matter. The Bill also provides that in any case where the effect of this provision would be to impede the transaction of any particular item of business the Secretary of State may be called upon to remove the disability which is thereby imposed by giving directions on the manner in which the business may be transacted on behalf of the council.
In substituting disqualification from voting instead of disqualification from membership the Bill proceeds upon the principle followed in Section 107 of the Scottish Housing Act, 1925, which I mentioned to begin with, and also Section 76 of the English Local Government Act, 1933. The only respects in which this Bill differs from the law which is at


present in operation in England and Wales are, first, in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2, where a councillor who has within three months been in receipt of or an applicant for Poor Law relief is disqualified from taking part in the consideration of the amount of outdoor relief to be provided in the case of any other person. In England and Wales the provision is considerably stronger. A person who has within 12 months of his selection been in receipt of Poor Law relief is disqualified by statute from membership of the council. Since there is no similar existing provision for disqualification from membership or for voting in Scotland, in the circumstances the Departmental Committee took the view that they would not be justified in recommending disqualification from membership as in England, but they were unanimously of the opinion that it would be undesirable that a member actually in receipt of relief from the local authority should participate in the discussion of the cases of other applicants, and this Sub-section gives effect to that view.
The other point on which the law differs from the law in England and Wales is that under Sub-section (8) of Clause 2, the Secretary of State is empowered, where the number of members of a council disabled by the provisions of the Section is so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of business, to intervene either by removing the disability of the persons concerned or by giving directions on the manner in which the business may be transacted on behalf of the council. In England and Wales the Minister of Health can only remove the disability, but the Departmental Committee, in recommending the provision of this alternative power, had in mind particularly the cases in which the whole, or practically the whole, of the members of a council might be disqualified on some matters such as fixing house rents. The Committee felt that in such circumstances it would be desirable that the Secretary of State should have power to direct that the business in question should be transacted otherwise, perhaps by the appointment of an independent person or body of persons for that particular purpose.

Mr. Westwood: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that information to that effect was received from the committee?

Mr. Wedderburn: Perhaps the hon. Member has misunderstood me. That is one possible example; and I recall the hon. Member himself once mentioned to me that some other local authority should be asked to do it.

Mr. Westwood: But you said "an independent person," and that is what I am challenging.

Mr. Wedderburn: I was going to elaborate the point in a moment or two, but I do not see in what way the hon. Member can object to the definition which I have given. The report says:
We recommend that power be given to the Secretary of State where the number of members of a local authority so disabled at any one time would be so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of any particular item of business to remove the disability or to give directions as to how the business is to be transacted, e.g., by the appointment of an impartial person to fix rents for houses "—
the hon. Member himself signed that report—
and that he should also have power to remove the disability subject to conditions.
But that does not mean that the only way would be to appoint one impartial person. I said "person or persons" to be more comprehensive. I should think the best way would be to have several persons, and I should not expect any disagreement from the hon. Member on that point. In view of this unanimous recommendation of the committee my right hon. Friend felt justified in giving effect to their views in the Bill. To elaborate the point we have in mind about Subsection (8) of Clause 2 as regards dispensing power, that might be necessary, for example, in the case of a local authority the majority of whose members belong to a co-operative society, so as to enable the whole council to discuss and vote freely on a proposed contract or to accept the lowest tender. As for the alternative power, the precise form of any directions that might be given under the Sub-section would depend upon the circumstances of each case and would be determined after consultations with the local authority, but what my right hon. Friend has in mind as one of the possibilities—without definitely excluding others—is the appointment of a tribunal of three or four independent persons. If experience showed that the number of cases to be dealt with justified it, it might


be found possible—I do not say it would be, but it might be—to have a standing tribunal which would be capable of dealing with authorities in any part of Scotland, so as to secure uniformity of decision. But that is merely a speculation, and there is nothing in the Bill to prescribe what kind of body might be asked to decide upon questions of this kind.
I hope that the House will agree to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is a matter of urgency to members of local authorities in Scotland, many of whom have unwittingly fallen into this position, and I think that the immediate removal of these disabilities is urgently necessary for progress with the business of local authorities particularly in connection with housing in many parts of Scotland.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: Before I ask the Secretary of State some questions about this Bill I should like to clear up one point of dispute between us and the Under-Secretary. If we gathered his remarks aright he was not aware that this question of disability had arisen until recently. As a matter of fact these difficulties had arisen in the time of the first Labour Government of 1924, If the Under-Secretary will look at the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on 15th April, 1924, he will find on page 719 of the Public Bills for that year the Bill which was introduced by the Labour Government, which could not be proceeded with because the Government went out of office. We were, therefore, rather amazed to hear the Under-Secretary say that this was the first occasion on which the matter had been brought to his notice. It is true that the present Measure differs materially from, and in some respects goes further than, the Bill of 1924. It is a Bill with which we are in general concurrence. We welcome the spirit in which it is designed, and we hope, although we are doubtful in some respects, that it will achieve the objects aimed at.
I want to put a few questions on specific points to the Secretary of State. Clause 2 provides that if a member of a council is held to have a pecuniary interest; if he is a member of a company or a society with which a contract has been made; if

he or any nominee of his is a member of a company or other body with which the contract is made or is proposed to be made, or which has a direct personal interest in the matter,
he is to be prohibited from voting or taking part in the proceedings relating to the contract. Let us see where this carries us. It is common knowledge that the Co-operative Wholesale Society in Scotland is the child of the retail societies. The retail societies have a pecuniary interest in the Wholesale Society. If, say, the corporation of Glasgow makes a contract with the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, then under the wording of this Clause, as I read it, any shareholder in any retail co-operative society in Scotland would be affected. We ought to be clear about this matter. If the councillor is held to be the holder of a pecuniary interest; if he is a member
of a company or other body with which the contract is made or is proposed to be made or which has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter under consideration "—

Mr. Colville: The "matter under consideration"?

Mr. Johnston: Yes. The subject under discussion. As I read the Clause, it means that if a contract is placed with the Co-operative Wholesale Society, then any member of a retail society is banned from discussing or voting upon that contract in the council, although his pecuniary interest in the contract with the wholesale society may be infinitesimal. It may be only one-millionth part of a pound, yet, as the Clause is drawn, members of the retail co-operative society, although their own society is getting no contract, will be held to be disqualified because the Cooperative Wholesale Society is getting the contract.
I suppose that what is really aimed at is the holding company. If the Clause is designed to get at the holding company, I have no quarrel with it. I should regret exceedingly if there were any alteration in the Bill which would permit a member of a council to get a contract or to be interested in a contract with his council and escape the law by the simple expedient of forming a holding company, and getting away with it in that way. But that is another pair of shoes from having a Bill which provides that a contract with the Co-operative Wholesale Society in Scotland precludes shareholders in a retail co-operative society from voting or speaking on the contract.
My second question is a simple one. It relates to the succeeding paragraph, Clause 2 (2, b), which relates to a councillor who is held to have a pecuniary interest in a contract if he is in the employment of a person—I suppose in this case person means also a body—with whom a contract is made. Suppose a council makes a contract for coal with a colliery company for the supply of coal for its gasworks, then any employé of that colliery company who may be a member of the city council or the town council will be automatically barred from speaking or voting on the contract. This not only affects colliers; I could think of 20 other occupations in which workmen are engaged where, if this Clause goes through as now drafted, the workman councillor will be forbidden to speak or vote on the contract. If the Secretary of State finds that our fears on this matter are justified, I hope that he will be prepared to amend the Clause so that the fears we apprehend may be dissipated.
My third difficulty is more serious. Will the Secretary of State look again at Clause 2 (8), which provides that if the numbers of members of a council disabled are so large that refusal to permit them to vote or speak would impede the public business, the Secretary of State may remove the disabilities upon application being duly made to him. What might happen there? I have here a document in connection with an application made from Stoke-on-Trent City Council, where 41 per cent. of the members of the city council are members of the Burslem Cooperative Society. There was a contract to be let for pasteurised milk. The medical officer of health demanded pasteurised milk, and the council had no option but to give the contract to the co-operative society, which is the only supplier of pasteurised milk. Forty-one percent. of the members of the council, theoretically, are trading with their own society. They applied to the Minister of Health for exemption from the disability provided for in the Act. What did the Minister of Health say? Here is a letter, dated 1st March:
As you know, my predecessors and I, in the exercise of our power under Section 76 (8) of the Local Government Act, 1933, have on many occasions in the past few years removed disabilities imposed by that Section on members of the Stoke-on-Trent Town Council, who were also, either directly or through their spouses, members of the Burslem and District

Industrial Co-operative Society, Limited. This action has been taken when we have been informed that at least one-half of the members of the council have been disabled under the terms of the Section. In connection, however, with a recent application from the council, I have had occasion to review the position and, on the basis of the figures now supplied by the council, which show that considerably less than one-half of the members "—
it is 41 per cent. —
are under the disability, I do not feel that I can properly grant dispensations, and I have felt obliged to direct that a reply be sent as in the enclosed copy.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Disgraceful.

Mr. Johnston: I agree. Therefore, we have arrived at this position that because the Minister of Health holds that 41 per cent. of the membership of the Stoke City Council is insufficient to warrant him in granting dispensations, 41 per cent, of the members of the City Council, almost one-half, are forbidden to speak or vote on the proposition with regard to the contract. The Secretary of State for Scotland now comes forward and says, in effect: "Give me just the same discretionary powers that my colleague the Minister of Health has in England." I put it to the House that these privileges are illusory. They do not mean anything, if you are going to remove the disability when 50 per cent. of the Council are affected and you refuse to remove the disability when 41 per cent. are affected. In those circumstances we have arrived at a state of affairs when local government has become farcical With out exaggeration I say that local government in such circumstances is being put under the control of minorities who do not represent and cannot represent the majority of the electors.

Mr. Alexander: And done under the direction of the Minister.

Mr. Johnston: I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will very carefully consider this matter. I know that he did not put the Clause in by malice aforethought, and I know it is a very difficult subject to deal with. We all share the object that he has in mind. We are not going to stand for anything that savours of or opens the door to corruption in any shape or form in local government, but there is a vast difference between corruption in local government and so tying yourselves by legal knots and difficulties that


local government becomes impossible. I submit that what has happened in the English case at Stoke could well happen in Scotland under this Bill, unless we are exceedingly careful.
There is one further point on that matter. In the English Bill the Minister has power only to remove the disability, but the Secretary of State is taking power here to give directions as to the manner in which the business will be transacted. It is an exceedingly serious matter for the right hon. Gentleman to put himself in the anomalous and indefensible position of saying to a corporation like that of Glasgow, Edinburgh, or anywhere else in Scotland, "You have 50 per cent. or 40 per cent. of your councillors who are shareholders, direct or indirect, in a cooperative society, and, therefore, if you want pasteurised milk, for example, I will give directions as to how you will conduct your business on the city council." There was the ominous hint that we had from the Under-Secretary of State when he indicated that this might mean the handing over of the direction of business to a single individual.

Mr. Wedderburn: I only quoted from the report.

Mr. Johnston: I could not see it there, but whether or not it is in the report, it matters nothing. It is obvious that the Under-Secretary is unhappy about it now.

Mr. Wedderburn: No. I said "person or persons" because that is a well-known comprehensive phrase. It docs not mean that the Government has any prediliction for having one person, and not several.

Mr. Johnston: You are taking powers to hand over the direction of the business of a popularly elected local authority to some outside individual. I submit that that is a matter of fundamental importance, and I am certain that when it comes to be debated on the Committee stage, the Secretary of State will not be able to sustain that defence for an hour. Then there is the question of the fixation of rent, and I can see the difficulty that the Department of Health for Scotland might quite well be asked to undertake the fixation of a scale of rents.

Mr. Colville: There is nothing to prevent it being done.

Mr. Johnston: No, but what staggered us was these outsiders coming in. In the last resort the Secretary of State can be shot at in this House, if his Department does anything foolish or stupid. We hear a great deal of talk these days about commissars being found on directorates and about there being all sorts of things in the world aimed at destroying local government, and we cannot in these circumstances permit this thing to come in here by a side door.
Now may I turn to another point and deal with housing? The difficulty has arisen here partly because of what is called the Aberdeen case and partly because of the fact that in Scotland there is a steadily growing number of towns where the bulk of the housing is municipally owned. In England that is not so, because private building comes in to a greater extent, but in Scotland practically all the housing that is being built to let is being built by the local authorities, and where you get a situation like that you are bound to have a state of affairs in which a growing number of councillors are themselves tenants of the council houses. The law at the moment is that no councillor can vote upon any matter which relates to housing if he is a tenant of a council house, but see how that spreads. In the Aberdeen case a councillor, in June, 1937, had the temerity to vote for a resolution which actually raised his own rent from £13 17s. 4d. per annum to £18 10s.

Mr. Colville: In Aberdeen too.

Mr. Johnston: He did so, believing it to be in the public interest and believing that the rent was actually too low. But see what happened to him. He was promptly taken before the sheriff—this man who voted to raise his own rent, in Aberdeen, from £13 17s. 4d. to £18 10s. per annum—and was found by the sheriff to have been in contravention of Section 107 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, and, if you please, he was fined £3 for his temerity.
Local government in these circumstances simply becomes a farce. You cannot beat this in comic opera; Gilbert and Sullivan never staged anything better than this. The right hon. Gentleman now comes along with a Clause in this Bill designed to remedy that state of affairs. He says that nobody is to be allowed to vote


or speak on any housing matter where he has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in it. How far is this going? If I become the tenant of a council house, have I an indirect pecuniary interest, for example, in voting to keep out a dog-racing track or to keep a new public-house licence out of my neighbourhood? Yet, as the thing stands, on these and dozens of other questions the law can debar me from exercising my right as a city councillor and giving an honest vote upon these questions.
Let me now stake less extravagant suggestions, which I believe have already been examined by lawyers and which they greatly fear. A councillor in a council house cannot under this Clause vote on any question as to the amount of money that" is to be put in the pool for repairs, because, if you please, he has an indirect pecuniary interest in the matter, and he cannot vote upon the purchase of land for housing or upon any question which affects rent. In Glasgow we have about 55 per cent. of the members of the city council who are people of my own way of thinking, and about 45 per cent. of the members of the council are called Moderates. If this Bill goes through, any Moderate can put all our 55 per cent, of members in the cart by tabling a resolution that there is to be a £10 rise in all municipal rents, and the whole 55 per cent. will be unable to vote. Then they will come to the Secretary of State, and, poor chap, he will be between the devil and the deep sea, because if he exercises his discretion and removes the disability from the 55 per cent., he will be quarrelling with the 45 per cent. who are his own political friends on the Glasgow City Council.
All this is obvious nonsense and is clearly not the way to deal with this matter at all. I happen to know that the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the Glasgow City Council and the City Clerk have been examining this Bill, and they suggest an alternative method. The proviso to Clause 2 of the Bill states:
Provided that this section shall not apply to an interest in a contract or other matter which a member may have as a ratepayer or inhabitant of the area or as an ordinary consumer of gas, electricity or water or to an in-forest in any matter relating to the terms on which the right to participate in any service provided by the council, including the supply of goods, is offered to the public

The Glasgow Corporation suggest that you should say that Clause 2
shall not apply to an interest in a contract or other matter which a member may have as a tenant or occupier of any house belonging to the council
That is, as a particular individual, not as a general proposition. I think that a councillor should be prohibited from voting directly for a reduction in his own rent; I think he should be prohibited from voting on any matter which brings directly into his pocket any gain from the public funds; but surely, if it is and has been right for all these years that a man who may be a consumer of electricity on a large scale is to be entitled to and does vote for a reserve fund in the electricity department, or for a cheapening of the general rate for electricity, which he and all his friends may share, it is equally right that the consumer of municipal houses, because that is what he is, shall be put in no worse position.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal made by the Corporation of Glasgow, that a man may vote on general issues, but not on particular issues benefiting himself, is one that he would do well to consider between now and the Committee stage. At any rate, I hope that before the Debate closes the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us, as the Lord Advocate told us on the previous Bill, that he will be prepared to examine the suggestions which we are making, not in any party or partisan spirit, but with a view to getting the maximum beneficial result for local government in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) knows a great deal about the details of some of these matters, and doubtless he will add to what I have said, but it would be of the greatest importance to local government in Scotland that the Secretary of State should not take a narrow, partisan, or class view of his responsibilities here.

Mr. Colville: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of taking a partisan or a class view, in view of the fact that I brought this in largely on the representations of the committee on which his hon. Friend sat.

Mr. Johnston: I am putting the point to the right hon. Gentleman that there are certain consumers of electricity, say, on the Glasgow Corporation who are free,


without let or hindrance, to vote upon electricity matters, and I suggest that, in view of the development of municipal building and council housing in Scotland, the same principle as applies to electricity should apply to housing. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill with the best intentions in the world. I am not suggesting anything to the contrary. I say in public now, if the right hon. Gentleman desires it, that from the very hour that we approached him on this matter he gave every indication of his anxiety to put the matter right. But it is our duty here in this High Court of Parliament to put the questions I have put to-night and to press him to put the matter in order. I am sure that if he does examine these questions fairly he will give our points very considerable support.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foots: On the main principles we are all agreed that this is a good Bill and one which should speedily find its way to the Statute Book. We are all conscious of the fact that in this House we are perpetually placing fresh burdens on local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman went so far as to express doubt whether local government was in danger of breaking down. I think if that is true it is due to a certain extent to the difficulty of personnel in these days, the difficulty which I think will be found, both in Scotland and England, of finding a sufficient number of capable men and women who can give the necessary time to discharge the duties which are now placed upon them and which increase year by year. It will be an unfortunate thing if, as the result of an interpretation recently given to the law of Scotland, we were further to narrow the field of recruitment for service in local government.
This Bill does include certain very necessary safeguards. As the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, nobody is going to quarrel with the provision that a councillor should not vote in relation to a contract in which he himself has a pecuniary interest. As the right Gentleman has also said no one wants to open the door to corruption in local government. But there do seem to me to be three classes of persons whose position may be subject to some controversy when we discuss this Bill on the Committee stage—persons who live in council houses and are councillors,

co-operators and those in receipt of public assistance. It is perfectly true that all those three classes of persons in a sense have a pecuniary interest, though it does not seem to me to be nearly as great a pecuniary interest as that of the man whose firm is entering into a contract with the council. It is not in the same category. The councillor who lives in a council house, or even the councillor who is or has recently been in receipt of public assistance, may have something of value to contribute to the discussions of the council on that subject. I am expressing only my own personal opinion, but it does seem to me to be going a little too far to say that he may not take part in the discussions at all.
Would it not be sufficient in dealing with these categories of persons who live in council houses, co-operators and those in receipt of public assistance who are not persons whose firms have entered into contracts with the council, to provide that first they should notify their interest, and secondly, that they should not vote? Is it entirely reasonable to say they shall not take part in the discussions at all? We all appreciate the point made by the Under-Secretary, when he said it might be unfortunate if a man himself in receipt of public assistance were to sit in judgment on other applicants for public assistance. But is that a reason why he should be debarred from any discussion on the general principles on which public assistance is administered in his area?
I want to say a few words about Subsection (8) of Clause 2. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that as it is at present drafted that Clause is much too wide. Of course, even more than hon. Members above the Gangway we on these benches look with the greatest. suspicion on anything in the nature of a dispensing power which is undoubtedly included in this Clause. I was a little startled by the phrase of the Undersecretary when he spoke; of the appointment of an independent person or body of persons. There is this very wide power to give directions, not merely to dispense with certain disabilities, but also to give direction as to the manner in which certain business may be transacted. It did appear from the speech of my right hon. Friend who introduced this Bill that it is not difficult to contemplate the possibility of some independent arbiter or arbiters. It does not seem to make very


much difference whether the power is to be vested by the Secretary of State in one person or in a number of persons. What I am more concerned about is the position of the arbiter or arbiters as the case may be.
As the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) said, if the decision in certain cases is to be taken by the Secretary of State himself, then it is taken by somebody who is responsible to this House. But if it is going to be delegated to some independent person, then it is not the case that the Secretary of State will be funclus officio as soon as he has appointed the independent person, so that the decision will be left to the independent person whom it would be impossible to challenge on the Floor of this House or of the council chamber concerned? Therefore, I concur with what the right hon. Gentleman said that this Clause is too wide as it at present stands. We shall look forward to trying to amend it in the Standing Committee.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Allan Chapman: I rise, for a few moments, to support this Bill which has had such a general welcome from all sides. It is the result of the labours of an admirable committee representing all parties and the local authorities. For a committee with a long title such as this Local Government Public Health Consolidation Scotland Committee, I think the memorandum is admirably short and lo the point, and has produced very good results. I think the House will agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to its members and to its chairman, Sir John Jeffrey, who has given such valuable service to Scotland now, and in the past. The main justification for the Bill surely lies in the words on the top of page 3, where it is stated that the existing law is unsatisfactory in several respects. As I see it, those unsatisfactory features might be said to be (1) that the existing law is not uniform in operation; (2) that, in some cases, disqualification under the existing law operates unduly where there is no serious conflict between duty and interest; and (3) it fails to operate where there is a substantial conflict in other cases. If I am correct in these assumptions, then there is clearly a case for this Bill. Members in all parts of the House have indicated that they feel the same way about it.
I like this Bill because it is reasonable and, I think, practical. A short Bill, it would be difficult to criticise at any length some of the provisions without embarking upon Committee points which would not be in order. But in its general principle of requiring that where there is beneficial interest, there should be no voting, it is sound because it tries to put a safeguard where there may be conflict between duty and interest. To disqualify a person from membership entirely because there is one special interest, one small aspect of local affairs in which a person concerned might have a pecuniary interest, is too drastic, and I agree with the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) when he says that possibly that sort of thing keeps good people from rendering service on the councils. It is the essence of democracy that, whilst we make our safeguards, we shall admit in the widest possible way all those who can render service to the State, whether it be locally or at the centre. It seems to me common sense that if there is to be disqualification it shall operate only for the special interest concerned.
Someone has said that this Bill brings us into line with the English Bill of 1933. That is not always necessarily a recommendation, but I think on this occasion we can say that to come into line with England, and in some respects to go a little ahead of England, is a good thing for Scotland. I look at England in this respect and paraphrase the words of the poet:
I could not love thee half so well,
Loved I not Scotland more
Clause 2, Sub-section (8) has raised a good deal of discussion. Without the Sub-section in question, obviously a council would cease to operate. I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary say that a council did exist in which all the Members were occupying council houses. I do not comment on that critically. One can understand it perfectly well. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) pointed out that it is mainly municipal enterprise in Scotland which is building houses to rent at the present time. But one does come up against the difficulty of inventing a safeguard where the majority of, or the whole council, are occupying council houses.
I could not quite follow the point which the right hon. Member for West Stirling was making about pecuniary interest. It seemed to me that he drew the bounds very widely when he suggested that a greyhound racing track or the question of licences would raise a point of pecuniary interest. I am not a lawyer. One only sees these things from the general point of view of the layman, but I thought that pecuniary interest meant where a circumstance was liable to put money into one's own pocket. That may be a very rough-and-ready definition, but that is how I think the Bill might be interpreted by the layman. I have some slight anxiety about this Clause where the Secretary of State may either waive the disqualification that arises or direct how business shall be conducted. To go into that I fear would be dealing with Committee points, but I would like to make this general suggestion, that the final form the powers take, should rest on a body of persons and not on a single individual. It seems to me that if a single individual had the responsibility for deciding in matters like this—delegation of duties under compulsion as it were—would be very difficult duties to carry out and would possibly lead to complications whereas if the Department of Health were responsible or a Central Standing Committee set up to deal with cases from the whole of Scotland the machinery would work more smoothly. I trust that the Secretary of State will not dismiss that matter from his mind when he comes to reply. I am very glad to support the Bill, and I am sure that it will have a quick and smooth passage through the House.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: The words I have to say will be few and will be in general terms, but, first of all, may I say to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) that I will read with interest to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he has said. His reference to the difficulty of getting suitable men and women for this work raised certain doubts in my mind, but I prefer to wait until to-morrow before I comment upon his observations.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to tell him that I said there was difficulty, owing to the increasing burdens upon local authorities, in getting

suitable men and women who can devote the requisite time to the work.

Mr. Leonard: I will endeavour to relate the meaning of what the hon. Member has said to the position in which we are, and to the difficulties that may be before us—if there are any. I take very kindly to the idea that there should be as much elasticity as possible in the government of this or any other country, but the position that places itself before me in the Bill is government by dispensation. That appears to open out a great field of expediency, and we must, if we are to enter it, do so with very great care. Special reference has been made to contracts, and I would touch upon that point. I suppose we may speak as we think in matters which affect municipal authorities and the duties upon these bodies. I have great difficulty in determining what the ordinary member of a co-operative society could do which would be in conflict with his duty as a citizen if the society of which he was a member dared to quote for some contract with the local authority. On the question of pecuniary interest, which the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Chapman) has just mentioned, I think he properly used the term as meaning putting money into one's own pocket. If that be the measure I wish it could be taken as the measure, and then there would be no difficulty in making alterations to the Bill.
In regard to the position of co-operators, the average shareholding interest of co-operative members in this country is £18 10s. If you tried to work out what pecuniary interest would attach itself to the ordinary member of a cooperative society which had quoted in tender form for the requirements of its local authority, you would be entering into details of arithmetic which I should have very great difficulty in following. That is by the way. The sentiment of connection with a co-operative society might attract the member to favour his own society as a contractor, but that impression would be corrected if the person holding that opinion attended a quarterly meeting, because at that meeting he would find the discussion so contracted that the activities of the society were reduced to a businesslike form, run on the lowest possible margin. It would be a margin of this description, that tender forms would be made up and forwarded to the local authority. That would further


reduce the pecuniary interest of any co-operator in that society.
The position is that we are faced with a principle. The idea is to prevent the ordinary member of the public who may be a co-operator from acting in such a manner that he would favour himself in a pecuniary manner. I am not always inclined to indulge in examinations of what we call principle, but I wonder as to the competency of this House to say much about it, because I have seen from time to time in past years, matters pass through this House involving not a simple share in a public contract, but millions of pounds of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, through the medium of subsidies and other forms of subvention. I have heard Members of this House—I am not speaking against them and not condemning them—participating in discussion the result of which would be a direct, ample and. measurable amount of advantage coming to themselves. That has not been taken in this House as something that would endanger the moral principle of Members of this House, and if that can be conceived as permissible with safety to the moral principles of Members of this House, I cannot conceive that the meagre, even if measurable, amount of advantage that would accrue to an ordinary member of a co-operative society taking part in voting affecting, may be, £100 or £200 for a municipal authority, would endanger his moral principles at all.
I cannot conceive, from that point of view, why that fear exists. Take it as spread over the people with whom that co-operative member might be associated: but we have seen recently a Member of this House appointed to the highest position in the Ministry of Agriculture although he is a representative of the trade union of agriculturists of this country. He is responsible for all orders and legislation relating to agriculture, and not only will he be personally involved in the recommendations and the proposals made to this House, but actually and individually every member of his own trade union will be a recipient of the advantages that he may be able to give him. I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland that we should not be perturbed about the possibilities of a humble member of the public who happens to be a co-operator and, by virtue of his public service, is elected by the citizens to represent them on the council of the town or

burgh, or whatever the geographical part of the country may be.
If we are to be particular and meticulous in this matter we have to close up every avenue. Has the Secretary of State never heard of the direct trade relationship that can be traced between, we will say, the member of a local authority who is a private enterprise baker and who, from time to time, needs his shop painted, and of the intimacy that sometimes exists between that baker and the painter who is also a representative on the public authority? The avenues for that kind of thing are widely known, and I am afraid will not be disposed of, if they are touched at all, by the Bill. The fact that in the past we have made progress in municipal representation and administration by a general acceptance of the uprightness and honesty of those who present themselves to the people for their suffrages, and the capacity that the people have to select such honourable persons to represent them, should sway the Secretary of State in a great measure in his attitude towards this question of contract as it is dealt within the Bill.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: As has been well said, the principle with which we are concerned when we are discussing a Bill of this kind is to get rid of any possibility of corruption in the administration of local affairs, but surely it should not be beyond the wit of the Secretary of State for Scotland and his legal advisers to prepare a Bill that will eliminate effectively all possibility of corruption without imposing injustice, which is what we have in this Bill. It is at Bill directed against corruption, but one that most certainly imposes very serious injustice on quite honest and devoted servants of the community. On this side of the House there is a general attitude towards the masses of the people of this country that can be summed up by saying that every member of the working class should be associated with the political party of the working class, and every member of the political party of the working class should be a loyal co-operator. In other words, the general attitude is that every Labour or other representative of working-class interests in-a local authority should be a member of a co-operative society. We know that in. some cases that does not apply, but the movement all the time is in that direction, and more and more, as council after


council gives majorities to working-class representatives, the members of those working-class local authorities will be co-operators. But here we have a situation in which, in many cases, it will be impossible for those majorities to carry out their ordinary administrative functions.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) drew attention to the fact that, owing to the way in which the wording of the Bill is framed, someone who is a member of a retail society in Glasgow might be affected if the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society put in a tender for a contract with the Glasgow Corporation. If that remark of the right hon. Gentleman is correct, if there is a possibility of the words being so stretched—and the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot deny that such an interpretation might be put upon them—one could have this situation: Let me take an industry of which the Minister has some knowledge, the steel industry. The steelworkers' trade union has an agreement with the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, under which, when the profits go up, wages go up. It may be that the Glasgow Corporation, for instance, is wanting some steel for various purposes—housing and so on—and invites one of the steel companies to quote. Then it may be that a representative of the steelworkers' trade union on the city council, because he has an association and an agreement through his union with this company, would be affected. Indeed, in view of the possibility of the words being stretched as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling, there would seem to be no end to the ramifications of a Bill of this description.
We know already how farcical the working of local administration can become as a result of such interpretations. We have heard the story of the Aberdeen man who was brought before the sheriff and fined £3 for voting for increased rents, and the light hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling said that Gilbert and Sullivan never had anything to equal that. That is indeed true. If the sheriff had told this man that he was being fined £3 for contravening the traditions of Aberdeen, or for destroying a legend that has provided much enjoyment for the people of this country, one could have appreciated it, and would have understood that

the sheriff had a sense of humour; but when we find a sheriff put in the position of having to sit solemnly in a court and impose a fine of £3 merely because a man voted for an increase of rent for himself and those who occupy the same category of housing, that truly is of the character of Gilbert and Sullivan.
I was going to draw attention to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), and to ask what would be the effect if the Bill were made applicable to this House. I am certain that the Secretary of State for Scotland would be barred from many discussions and many votes in this House if the Bill were so applied. Not only would the benches on the other side of the House be empty, as of course they are now, but the Division Lobby would be empty also. A couple of week-ends ago I was reading the manuscript of a book about "Rank and Property" on the Government benches. It is a most amazing revelation. It is a farcical situation in which, with all the wealth that is behind the Government, and the continual pocketing of finances from the public purse on the other side, that we should be discussing this question of the co-operators and the trade unions.

Mr. Colville: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, he seems to have failed to recognise the purpose of the Bill. If this Bill is not passed, there will be very many empty benches in local authorities in Scotland. The purpose of the Bill, though it may have certain defects which require remedying by Amendment, is to enable members of local authorities who are now disqualified to retain their seats.

Mr. Gallacher: I recognise that, and that is why on this side of the House we are supporting the Bill, but nevertheless it is farcical that, while we are discussing a Bill which is going to remedy an existing evil, we should be perpetrating an injustice against a great many representatives who are capable of giving the best possible service to the community in various parts of the country. I know of councillors myself—very good and able councillors—who are employés of the cooperative movement. According to Subsection (2, b), of Clause 2, if a person
is a partner or is in the employment of a person with whom the contract is made or is proposed to be made


he is regarded as having a pecuniary interest. I am of opinion that the Secretary of State for Scotland, with his legal advisers should be able to frame this in such a way as to enable members of a co-operative society to be excluded from this provision. Nobody could argue that the ordinary member of a co-operative society on a town council is going to get anything into his pocket out of a contract with the Co-operative Wholesale Society or one of the individual co-operative societies. The holdings of the individual members are of so small a character as not to count for anything. Let us be certain that we stop corruption in connection with local representatives, but let us not do injustice to this body of people.
In connection with housing, there are many good councillors who occupy council houses and who because of their experience in council houses and their association with other people living in such houses, are best fitted to give an opinion on such questions as whether the houses should be repaired or whether the rents should be increased or decreased. I am not going to argue whether they should have power to vote—although I would not withhold that power—but it is doing an injury to local government to debar such councillors, with their experience, from taking part in the discussion. Let us take the case of a business man with a seat on the Glasgow Town Council who lives outside the boundaries of the city. He knows nothing about council houses; he has no association with the people who live in them; yet he is allowed to get up and state his opinion on any question affecting council houses, while the councillor who knows most about the matter is debarred from taking part in the discussion. That is not right. The same principle applies in the case of the man who is on public assistance. No man wants to be in the position of having public assistance. If he is in that position it is because circumstances have forced him into it. He is being treated unjustly, because of the bad working of the system. Yet the very man who has most experience of the needs and desires of people in that position is to be debarred from taking part in any discussion about relief, though he is the one man above all others who should be encouraged to take part. I would appeal to the Minister to see whether it is possible, between now and the Committee stage, to amend the

Bill, so that it may achieve the good objects for which it is designed without creating injustices.
The most undesirable thing that could happen, when more and more the working-class movement is advancing in local administration, when more and more there is a tendency for people to give a majority to the working-class movement on local authorities, is to create the impression that can be created by this Bill, that the desire is to take power away from the local authorities themselves and put it into the hands of the Department; to allow the Department to appoint someone who can make decisions over the heads of the local authorities themselves. This can be very dangerous, and I would appeal to the Minister to consider changing Subsection (8), Clause 2, in order to make it clear that if at any time the Department should have to interfere in the affairs of the local authorities there will never be any question, even though it is referred to in the report, of appointing some individual to decide rents or anything else. Let us encourage the advance which is taking place in local administration. We can get any number of representatives drawn from the trade unions and the cooperative movement. Let us see that, while we are endeavouring to prevent any possibility of corruption re-emerging, we do not continue to promote injustices against a large body of able and devoted local representatives.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Graham: I do not suggest for a moment that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the evils we are living under as a result of the present system. We are, to some extent, indebted to him for his willingness to face up to the situation which has recently arisen with regard to representation on the councils in certain parts of Scotland. I take it that it is the will of the present Government, as well as of ourselves, that the local people should have the right to choose for themselves the men or women who are best qualified to represent them on any council, whether it be a town council, a county council or a district council. People expect, naturally, that when they do elect their representatives those representatives will have full power to administer the law, without being restrained by political opponents who may be in a minority. The question in which I am particularly interested is that


the rights of democracy shall be maintained, that a man who is selected to sit on a town council shall have rights equal to those of any other member, providing always that he is not in a position where he would be subject to corrupting influences. All of us are agreed on that.
A town council in a part of my constituency has recently faced up to a situation like that. The majority of the council are members of the Labour party, and I believe that I am correct in saying that all of them are members of the local co-operative society. Owing to an opinion expressed by the town clerk of Stirling, the feeling has got around, naturally, that if that opinion is correct the position of the town councillor or the county councillor, as the case may be, is very seriously endangered, and that such a member cannot continue to be a satisfactory member of the council. I understand that in the Hamilton Town Council a contract was given to the local cooperative society after the opinion of the town clerk of Stirling had been given. The council unanimously decided to give the contract to the local co-operative society. One of the moderate members of the council drew attention to the fact that the opinion already expressed by the town clerk of Stirling would put these men in rather a serious position. Following upon that it was intimated that the local painters' society, who had been approached on this particular contract, threatened to take action against the members of the town council who were co-operators, in the belief, I suppose, that they were pecuniarily interested in the granting of that particular contract.
As a consequence we had a discussion with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am pleased to say that he met us in a very reasonable way. He agreed that the subject was of such importance that it should be brought as speedily as possible before the House of Commons. The Bill that he has submitted meets to some extent the difficulties in which local councillors in the different councils in Scotland are placed. I am not sure, however, that it is not capable of reasonable amendment. While accepting the Bill as it stands at the moment, we are taking advantage of the opportunity to point out certain of the anomalies which still exist, with the object of endeavouring to induce

the Secretary of State for Scotland and his advisers to be willing to meet us in the matter by still further amending and improving the Bill. I do not know that I can add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), who dealt with the disabilities under which the local co-operators in Scotland are suffering, pointed out the anomalies that still exist in the law, and expressed the hope, which is shared by all of us on this side of the House, that the Secretary of State for Scotland would be prepared to meet us reasonably on the matter. We are particularly anxious to secure that every man or woman who is chosen as a representative on a town, county or district council, or any other local body of a similar character, should have full power to carry out his or her duties.
Parliament imposes considerable duties upon local councils nowadays, and it would be particularly unfortunate if the law should be such that these persons were not allowed to serve, after having been chosen to represent the locality in which they live, and generally chosen because of their character. They are men and women of good character, otherwise they would be unable to secure seats on these councils. They are unlikely to be influenced by corrupt motives in regard to any question that may arise and conflict with their duties as public representatives. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give me some indication as to what is meant by Clause 2, Sub-section (1), which reads:
If a member of a county council, a town council or a district council has any pecuniary interest direct or indirect in any contract or proposed contract or other matter
What is meant by the words "or other matter"? I cannot conceive of the ordinary Labour member of a county or town council having any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in something that is described as "other matter," and which has not any particular name attached by which he could recognise it. I should like to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland what this really means. I would prefer, speaking personally, that everything that a town councillor ought not to do should be specified clearly so that he should know exactly what is expected from him and should not be held responsible for losing his seat in the event


of his voting or speaking in support of something vaguely described as "other matter." Speaking on behalf of the local representatives of the co-operative society who are members of the Hamilton Town Council, I am pleased that something is being done to remove all the possible disabilities under which they would be suffering if the law were continued as it is at the present time.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: We have got the impression from the Secretary of State for Scotland that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) received this Measure in rather a hostile spirit. It is true that my right hon. Friend examined the main objects of the Bill in a very critical manner and drew attention to some details that will require to be considered later on, but I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will receive from hon. Members on this side of the House all the assistance that we can possibly give to him to get this Measure upon the Statute Book as speedily as possible. There are, however, certain details that we would like to see amended, and we shall certainly try during the Committee stage to get such amendments incorporated in the Measure.
I think my right hon. Friend put up an unanswerable case with regard to some of these details. While the Secretary of State may not be able to give us any assurance to-night, I hope he will keep an open mind on the matter, and will in Committee meet us as far as he can. We want to make this a workable Measure. It is designed to meet a very urgent situation, but although the situation is urgent there is no need to pass slipshod legislation through the House. We ought to pass a Measure which will deal with the practical difficulties as outlined by the right hon. Member for West Stirling. I have a very special interest in this Measure, because for some 17 or 18 years I was a member of a local authority. During that time questions of this kind did not arise. During most of the time the local authority had not started building what we call municipal or council houses. That is a recent development, and has given us part of the problem with which the Measure is intended to deal. At that time town councillors were not occupying municipal or council houses, but the situation is

different to-day. Local authorities have been compelled to build large numbers of houses, and many of the councillors who are members of the working class have been compelled for very good reasons to occupy council houses. To-day they find themselves in an almost impossible position in the discharge of their duties as county or municipal councillors. I hope the Secretary of State will meet us as far as he can on this matter.
The situation from the co-operative point of view is very urgent and I hope that some better plan than is defined in the Measure will be found for dealing with the situation. It may not be advisable at this stage to go into the details. We can discuss them in Committee, but undoubtedly the co-operative movement is placed in a most invidious position. It is an organisation which during recent years has become a very important part of the communal life of the country, especially in the industrial areas, and it is very largely in the industrial areas that this particular problem arises. In the wider country districts the problem does not arise to the same extent as in the industrial areas, where the co-operative movement is strong. In these areas you find, as the Under-Secretary of State himself stated in his opening speech, that in one case the whole of the municipal councillors are members of the co-operative society.

Mr. Wedderburn: No, I said that they were tenants of municipal houses.

Mr. Watson: I beg pardon; but I could name places where almost all the members of the municipal council are members of the co-operative society as well. There have been some municipal councils in my own area, where there is not a wholly Labour representation, where the moderates are members of the co-operative society because the movement is so strong that it is considered the right thing for a man to be a member of the movement. There will be opportunities during the Committee stage to discuss the points of difference between us. We welcome the Measure and I want to thank the Secretary of State for so readily bringing it forward after his attention had been drawn to the difficulties which have recently arisen. The trouble existed before public opinion was drawn to it, following the expressions of the Town Clerk of Stirling. Since then things have developed rapidly and the


Secretary of State has shown commendable expedition in bringing forward the Measure. As far as this side of the House is concerned we will co-operate in the closest and heartiest manner in getting the Measure on the Statute Book as soon as possible, but there are some amendments which we should like to see made before it is placed on the Statute Book.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I want to associate myself with the statements which have been made by my hon. Friends on this side of the House and to express my gratification at the speed with which the Secretary of State has faced the problem which is creating difficulties as far as Scotland is concerned. In accepting the general principle of the Bill, I must point out that there are questions of detail on which we shall seek to make further improvements to the Bill, but the Secretary of State can rest assured that, as far as we are concerned, it will be in no spirit of hostility but with a desire to make the Measure even better than it is now. The Bill seeks to remove some of the anomalies which are associated with administration in Scotland at the present time. The Under-Secretary of State wondered why this question had not been made a real issue before now. The explanation is simple. In 1889 the Act which we seek to change was placed on the Statute Book. In 1900 a Bill dealing with the burghs of Scotland was also placed on the Statute Book, and both Acts of Parliament left it possible for a member of a company registered under the Companies Act to vote for contracts which might benefit himself personally, or benefit the company with which he was associated. At that time the co-operative movement was only in its infancy, and no reference was made in these Acts to the exemption of a member of a society which was registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.
The co-operative movement has grown. In 1889 to 1900 there was no co-operative society dealing with a supply of pasteurised milk; pasteurisation was not then carried out to the extent it is to-day. In those early days, not a single society carried out painting contracts, but as the co-operative movement grew, it reached

a position in which it was able successfully to compete with private enterprise in tendering for such contracts. The Under-Secretary of State may rest assured that there were many of us associated with administration in Scotland who knew what the law was, but our opponents did not realise what it was until we were able to enter into the field of competition in regard to painting contracts. Repeatedly, members of local authorities voted for contracts going to co-operative societies, but it was always when the co-operative societies submitted the lowest tenders. Our opponents did not act in a similar way.
I remember one case of tenders for a supply of policemen's caps. The lowest tender was that of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, which was to provide caps at 4s. 9d. each, and the second lowest tender was that of a local firm at 7s. 6d. a cap. Although the "Moderates" were returned for the purpose of effecting economies, because of their hostility to the co-operative movement they voted against the lowest tender and in favour of the second lowest tender. Fortunately, in that case, as the contract was for the police services, it had to be approved by the Scottish Office. I happened to be in contact with the Scottish Office in another direction at that time, and when the lowest tender was not accepted, I was able to pass word to the Scottish Office to watch the tender when it came up for their approval. To their credit, when that tender was sent to them by the Kirkcaldy town council, they made the necessary inquiries as to why the local authority was prepared to accept a tender at 7s. 6d. a cap when there was a tender at 4s. 9d. a cap. The local authority was compelled to accept the lowest tender, and the policemen of Kirkcaldy, at least for a short period, went about with cooperative caps on their heads.
The point I am making is that in my long association with local administration I know of no case where, when a cooperative society has tendered, there has been any vote given by a co-operative member who was a member of the local authority for other than the lowest tender; but I have given a typical illustration of those who wanted to defend private enterprise being willing to accept a higher tender rather than accept the lowest tender when it was made by a co-operative


society. In the case of that contract, we voted for it. We also voted for the cooperative society's tender for the supply of pasteurised milk. There were no other firms in Kirkcaldy that could supply pasteurised milk except one or other of the two local co-operative societies. It is true that under the law it was possible to disenfranchise all of us, but our opponents did not know what the law was, and we knew that if they wanted to take action, they were, under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, compelled to do so within 21 days; and that if they did not do that, we were perfectly clear. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that that is the explanation why this did not become a real issue until recently. Under the 1889 Act, there is no reference to exemptions with regard to industrial and provident societies.
A greater difficulty has arisen as a result of the Housing Act, 1935. Under the Section that we are now to repeal, which deals with voting in connection with housing, it was quite competent to vote for the fixing of rents under the 1930 Act, although one could not vote for fixing the rents under the 1919 Act if living in a 1919 Act house. That has been changed now as a result of the passing of the Housing Act, 1935. Before that Act was passed, separate accounts were kept for all the housing schemes, and there could be no beneficial interest in voting to keep the rents of 1930 houses at a certain level if a municipal tenant who was a member of the town council concerned was living in a 1919 or a 1924 house. The position has been completely changed since the passing of the 1935 Act. Many of our town councillors, irrespective of party, were living in what, in Scotland, were considered to be at least semi-decent houses. Under the 1935 Act, there was compulsory removal from overcrowded houses to the new municipal houses. Prior to 1935, there were separate housing accounts, and it was possible to vote for a reduction or an increase of rents for 1923, 1924, 1930 or 1933 houses; but under the 1935 Act there was a unification of the accounts, and consequently, a vote for an alteration in the rent of houses in any of the schemes was bound to have at least an indirect beneficial effect upon the individual who was voting. If there was a housing pool, and if there was a vote to reduce the rents of the houses in any scheme, the time might come when there

would be a deficit in the pool and it might be necessary to vote general increases to balance the housing pool. That is another explanation as to why there is a crisis in local administration at the present time and it is necessary to produce legislation to deal with some of the difficulties and remove some of the anomalies.
Reference has been made to the Departmental Committee's report in connection with this Bill. It is a memorandum that was issued with the Bill, and special reference was made to it by the Undersecretary. I have sat on innumerable Departmental Committees, and, quite apart from party politics, I have done all I could to help my country in the way of advice or suggestions for legislation. I can say that I have never sat with colleagues who have done more able and enthusiastic work than those who are at present engaged on work in connection with local government consolidation. I think the preliminary Bill which they have prepared is a monument to their energy and enthusiasm.
I wish particularly to speak of the work done by the official side of that committee in preparing the draft Bill of which this is a part. I think a tribute is due to those colleagues of mine who did such work in the interests of Scottish administration, but I do not think it was fair of the Under-Secretary to tell the House that I had signed this memorandum, because I did not do so. My signature is not upon it. I do not want to go into the details, but I do wish to point out that I did not agree with all the decisions that were reached. My duty as a member of a committee is to vote for what I consider best. If defeated I have to take the next best, and if I do not enter a caveat or state either my dissent or my disapproval, yet, as a good democrat, irrespective of consequences, I accept the decision of the committee. From the beginning I argued, rightly or wrongly, that a co-operative member had no real beneficial interest in any contract between the society of which he was a member and the town council on which he is a representative. I know that the Under-Secretary will not challenge my statement but it is recorded in the minutes that I dissented from the view that a co-operator, as such, could have a beneficial interest in these contracts.
I should say that we were hurried in our decision. I make no apology about


that. I have already paid a tribute to the energy and I would almost say the enthusiasm with which the Secretary of State acted once he was convinced that there was danger to local administration and that grave injustice was being done and was likely to be done to a section of our local administrators. He took what, to my mind, was the right course, and he took it speedily and remitted the whole problem to the committee dealing with the consolidation of local government law. As I say, the memorandum which deals with our work had to be drafted hurriedly on the very day when it was sent to the Under-Secretary and no Member had the opportunity—certainly I had not—of going over the proofs and correcting them. I am not complaining of that. It was all due to the energy with which the Secretary of State tackled an urgent problem. I am sure that the Under-Secretary is the last person in this House who wishes to do any injustice tome personally, and that there has been some misunderstanding which led to his statement that the memorandum was signed by me. On that account I merely mention the fact that the decision of the committee was hurried, in accordance with the request made by the Secretary of State. I hope I have made the point clear. It is in no spirit of hostility that I refer to this matter, but we have to deal with facts as they are and not with facts as we would like them to be.
There is an outstanding feature of Scottish administration which applies equally to English administration. It is the fact that we have had, shall I say, a purity in local administration of which we are entitled to be proud. It is the duty of the House and of those who are keenly interested in local administration, to keep it as pure as it has always been and to see that there is no possibility of corruption in dealing with local problems. The local administrator as far as his public work is concerned, must be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion, and the purpose of the Bill is to make sure that no one enjoys any real beneficial interests as a result of any vote cast by him on a local administrative body. But as has been pointed out, in remedying one injustice we must be careful not to create another, and I am sure that if a good case can be made out in Committee for

any alterations that will improve the Bill, the Secretary of State will have a receptive mind for such proposals. The Bill seeks to deal, first, with what is in Scotland a real anomaly. A member of a co-operative society with that very indefinite and infinitesimal advantage—if you are prepared to admit that there is any advantage at all, which I have contested all along—to-day not only runs the risks of being fined but, strictly speaking, under the law as it stands, is liable to the loss of his seat if any four local government electors take the case to the sheriff.
The crisis in Scotland arose in my own constituency where the co-operative society tendered for the contract for the painting of a large number of municipal houses. A member of the council raised the legal question of how this would affect members of the local co-operative society if they voted for that society's tender. I want the House to know that it was the lowest tender. There was no question of trying to get an unfair preference for the co-operative society. I think the opinion of the town clerk of Stirling was very well founded. It was a very carefully drawn document in which he proved to his own town council that if members who were also members of the co-operative society, voted for that society's tender and if any four ratepayers within the specified period took the case before the sheriff, those members were liable under the law, not merely to be fined but to lose their seats on the town council. I advised the representatives of the local authorities at that time not to take any action immediately on that decision, because I knew, although I did not tell them what legislation was proposed, that the committee was working on the problem. But the trouble spread from Stirling to Saltcoats and from Saltcoats to Hamilton. In Hamilton they were unanimously in favour of defying the existing law and voting in favour of the tender of the co-operative society which was the lowest. In the case of Saltcoats a majority decided not to accept tenders from the co-operative society until the law was changed and that attitude has been taken by several other authorities in Scotland.
The result is that local authorities are being called upon, in some instances at least, to pay more in connection with contracts for housing and even contracts for bread. When it comes to the supply of


pasteurised milk, it will be impossible for those contracts to be filled by local cooperative societies without disfranchising members of those bodies and not merely leaving them open to a penalty as in England. That is making local administration practically impossible and this Bill, at least in principle, seeks to deal with that anomaly. It seeks to bring the law, as far as I understand it, alongside the law in England. The law was changed in England in its application to co-operative societies in 1906. Then you had your Local Government Consolidation Act in 1933, and almost word for word you are going to get the assimilation of the Scottish law to that of England, but with at least one or two improvements. The difficulty that has really arisen in my mind is because of the special reference in the Memorandum:
subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose or to give directions as to how the business is to be transacted, e.g., by the appointment of an impartial person to fix rants for housing.
Even the reference in the Memorandum is specific in its application to the rents of houses and not to the general problem of administration associated with housing itself, because I can visualise direct interests even in connection with housing administration. But there is a specific reference only to rent. I am sure I am speaking for all on this side when I say that we could not stand up to those who live in municipal houses determining then-own rents. There are difficulties there and it is a problem that we have to face. It might lend itself to all kinds of difficulties in connection with administration. If there is a real difficulty in connection with rents because of these alterations in the law the final approval of the rents to be fixed, where this difficulty arises, might be left to the Department of Health, because someone is responsible in this House for answering for them. You could not discuss the decisions of the sheriff of a county in the House in the same way in which it is possible to deal with decisions arrived at by the Department of Health. We will place no obstacles in the way of the speedy placing of this Bill on the Statute Book. In principle we accept it. There is no difference between us and the Secretary of State in the principle that we have in mind, though there may be slight differences in the method of the application of the principle. I sincerely thank him for the speedy and

courteous way in which he met that deputation of Scottish Members who are dealing with the problem. He is to be congratulated on the speedy way in which he has even got his colleagues in the Cabinet to accept this legislation. I hope he will understand that anything that savoured of an attack upon him was not in any spirit of hostility. Any criticism that there has been is merely directed towards this piece of legislation.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's insight into the difficulties which a Minister must experience in getting legislation speedily brought forward, more particularly at a time like this when we have grave anxieties to contend with. I was, however, impressed by the situation that was developing, under which I thought a great hardship would be occasioned to a number of representatives on local authorities through no fault of their own. I thought it was quite possible that a situation might develop in which very many co-operators in different parts of Scotland, who were members of local authorities, would be deprived of their seats, and I felt that the matter was one which could not be allowed to stand. It is true that a Bill was brought forward in 1924 called the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill, but it did not become law, and it was not revived by the next Labour Government in 1929 presumably because the matter at that time had not reached the same state of urgency as to-day. I do not think anyone would say that, in point of fact, the existing law had brought about a difficult or dangerous state of affairs until fairly recently.
I was convinced that it was time to take action, and I thought the best thing I could do would be to refer the matter at once to the committee which was then, and is still, sitting, known as the Local Government and Public Health Consolidation (Scotland) Committee. I should like to echo the tribute which has been paid to that committee, sitting under the chairmanship of a very distinguished public servant, Sir John Jeffrey, formerly Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. It is representative of all parties. The hon. Member who spoke last, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. G. Kerr), and Sir Robert Hamilton, a former Liberal Member of Parliament, are all members. It has some very important represents-


tives of local authorities, with wide experience of local authority work, and it has also some official representatives. I put the question to this committee as a matter of urgency. I knew they were examining, amongst other things, the question of the disabilities of members of local authorities arising out of an interest in contracts and other matters, and I thank the committee for helping me to bring the Bill forward so speedily by letting me have this memorandum in so short a space of time. It was got out hurriedly, but that was in order to meet the urgent demand that I had put to the committee.
In the main I believe that their recommendations are right and fair. They are rather in line with the present English law, but they go a little further in certain respects. In England, for example, anyone who has within 12 months been in receipt of public assistance is disqualified from membership of a local authority. The Committee have proposed that anyone who has been in receipt of public assistance within three months should be able to retain his membership of the authority but should not be able to vote on matters relating to that subject. In that matter there is a difference between the existing law in England and this Bill. Then there is another point of difference which has been the subject of a good deal of discussion to-night, and which we may continue to discuss on the Committee stage. That is the recommendation of the Committee, embodied in the Bill, that the Secretary of State should not only be able to remove the disability of members of a local authority who would otherwise not be entitled to vote, but should in his discretion issue directions for the transaction of a particular piece of business. The Committee put forward the view that in certain circumstances that power should be available and they gave an example—the fixing of the rents for local authority houses. They visualise a situation in which we might have all the members of a local authority living in council houses. That is not impossible. I could think of one or two cases where it must be within sight.

Mr. Mathers: It is within sight in my constituency.

Mr. Colville: There might well come to be a state of affairs in which the Secretary of State was confronted with two

choices. Either he could say, "I will remove the disability and let them vote on the subject of rents" or "I will direct how that matter should be dealt with" Some discussion has taken place upon how that direction should be applied, whether by the appointment of some outside body to act as a tribunal, or whether, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk and the right hon. Member for West Stirling suggested, by referring the matter to the Department of Health. Those are points which I should like to consider in Committee, but I should like to retain this power, which I think in the special circumstances of a case such as I have mentioned might be valuable.
There is one other point which was raised by the right hon. Member for West Stirling, and that concerns the Co-operative Wholesale Society. He asked whether Sub-section (2, a) of Clause 2 meant that if a contract was placed with the Cooperative Wholesale Society by a local authority a member of a retail society who was a member of that authority would be debarred from voting because of his interest. I am advised that that would not in fact be the case. Under that Clause a member is reckoned as having an interest if he is a member of a company with which a contract is made. A member of a retail society would not be disqualified if the council placed a contract with the wholesale society of which he himself was not a member.

Mr. Gallacher: It speaks of "the society of which he is a member." If he is a member of the Scottish Wholesale Society does it apply there?

Mr. Colville: I am advised that the fact that the contract was placed with the wholesale society would not disqualify the member of the retail society.

Mr. Westwood: Is it not a fact that under the system of co-operation no individual member of a co-operative society is a member of the wholesale society? If his own society is a member of the S.C.W.S. or the C.W.S. he would not be cut out.

Mr. Colville: I think it is clear that he would not be cut out. The right hon. Gentleman has some doubt. He asked what was meant by nominee. The purpose is to avoid a holding company being formed simply to avoid the law.

Mr. Kirkwood: Supposing there is a local co-operative society, not the wholesale society, and it owns a creamery and supplies not only the local schools but the county schools with milk. How will members of the co-operative society who are also members of the town council or the county council stand in relation to that?

Mr. Colville: I should not like to answer that question without looking into the point more carefully. It would depend on the actual circumstances of the contract. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Graham) asked in relation to Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 what was the meaning of the words "or other matter." The Clause reads:
If a member of a county council, a town council or a district council has any pecuniary interest direct or indirect in any contract or proposed contract or other matter and is present at a meeting of the council at which the contract or other matter.
The words "or other matter" are intended to cover such things as public assistance or the rents of houses.

Mr. Graham: Have not public assistance and housing been dealt with already in another Clause?

Mr. Colville: Yes, but we need to put in these words in order to make sure that the position is covered under this Clause. I think that is the real reason for inserting those words at that point. A number of other points which have been raised might very well be discussed when we get this Bill in the Scottish Standing Committee. In the main I would agree with those Members who say that it is very necessary to preserve the purity of local government administration, and at the same time to do it in a way that is fair to those who give up their time to that work. I have a very high regard for those of all parties who give their time to local administration. I do not suppose there is any other country in the world in which local administration is so fairly carried on as in this country—and by this country I mean both sides of the Border. But I am anxious to see that in Scotland those engaged in local administration do not fall under an unfair disability, and I believe that in this Bill we have a Measure which will put them in a fair position and will avoid the dangers which would undoubtedly exist if the law is not altered. The position of those who are members of co-operative societies, the

position of those who are living in council houses and the position of those receiving public relief—all those points have been considered, and if the Bill does not go as far as some hon. Members would like, at least it makes a considerable advance; and I hope that after the discussion upon the various points which will arise in Committee it will emerge a Measure which will really be helpful to local administration in Scotland. I think the House in general has welcomed the introduction of the Bill, and I am glad to have heard the speeches which have been made upon it.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL [Lords].

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Bridport Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 13th day of March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Bath Gas Company, which was presented on the 10th day of March and published, be approved"— Mr. Cross.]

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (GENERAL DEPOSIT FUND) BILL.

Ordered, That Mr. Benson, Mr. Owen Evans, Mr. Mabane, and Sir Assheton Pownall be Members of the Select Committee on the Public Trustee (General Deposit Fund) Bill. — [Sir J. Edmondson.']

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ARMAMENTS (RAW MATERIALS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Sir J. Edmondson.]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards: Last week I asked the Prime Minister
to what extent the manufacture of armaments in Germany, Italy and Japan is dependent on supplies of materials from the British Empire and the United States of America, respectively; and whether he is now prepared to advocate a limitation of armaments throughout the world by a limitation of supplies of raw materials from the British Empire and the United States of America?
The reply that I received was as follows:
It is impossible to give a reliable estimate such as the hon. Member desires, and I doubt whether the particular proposal of the hon. Member would have the effect he desires."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1939; col. 896, Vol. 345.]
This is a matter of very grave importance and one which there seems to be a desire not to face up to. I believe that unless we face up to this problem there will arise much greater difficulties in the future through the distrust that will be created in the country. I want to draw attention to the fact that in 1935 the present Home Secretary at Geneva promised a full investigation into this matter of raw materials with a view to establishing, to the satisfaction of all countries concerned, a fair distribution of these raw materials. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech since Munich, said that this matter had to be thoroughly investigated and that there must be a vigorous, complete, remorseless and urgent inquiry. I want to know whether that inquiry will include the question of raw materials.
I would also draw attention to a statement by the Prime Minister after he came back, I think it was from the Godesberg conference, when I believe he said that it was unfortunate that we had not long ago invoked Article 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which deals with the adjustment of boundaries and of existing agreements. That is very true. It is a great pity that many of these things have not been done, and undoubtedly a great deal of discontent has been caused throughout the world because we, who control most of the raw materials, have not been willing to face up to these problems in time of peace. It

is because I feel that this is at the root of all the world's troubles to-day that I think we should get sufficient information from the Board of Trade so that the country may be satisfied as to what the position really is. I think it would not have been possible for either Germany, Italy, or Japan to be possessed of the arms which they have to-day, and of which we are so terrified, had it not been that the British Empire and the United States of America had supplied the raw materials with which to manufacture them.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon. Member that we have no control over the British Dominions or the United States.

Mr. Edwards: No, Sir, but my question asked whether the Prime Minister was now prepared to advocate the limitation of armaments by a limitation of the supplies of raw materials.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not advocate anything which will involve legislation.

Mr. Edwards: I do not know that advocating will involve legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot advocate anything on the Motion for the Adjournment which would mean legislation.

Mr. Edwards: Then may I deal with something which will not involve legislation, and that is the measure of control which has existed with regard to raw materials for a considerable time, with regard to rubber and tin, for instance? We have had a major control of these commodities for some time to satisfy the regulation of profits, and it seems to me that it would be possible to use those same restrictions for the purposes of peace. It is true that during the crisis last September 100,000 tons of British pig iron were sold to Germany at a time when we were expecting to be in very great difficulties. I do not know whether that would have involved legislation, but certainly that pig iron could not have been sent to Germany without the Government's permission, and I want to know whether the Board of Trade can tell us to what extent Germany, Italy, and Japan have to draw their raw materials from the British Empire. I


believe it is a fact that 75 per cent. of all the essential raw materials required for manufacturing armaments are controlled by Great Britain, the British Empire, and the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker: We have nothing to do here with the United States of America or with the control exercised by the British Dominions.

Mr. Edwards: I want to be sure that the Board of Trade will give to this House particulars, before the important Debate on Monday, as to the extent—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Four Minutes before Ten of the Clock until To-morrow.